4 ms·
That is an important distinction. But your page still won't fit on a floppy and is splattered with distracting animated gifs throughout the article and two gian
by jtth 10y ago
That is an important distinction. But your page still won't fit on a floppy and is splattered with distracting animated gifs throughout the article and two giant full screen ads and a prompt to give over my email address at the bottom. It's a more thoughtful assault.
- joshuatopolsky 10y agoDid you actually just say it wouldn't fit on a floppy disk?
- jessaustin 10y agoYou are committed to this character. Kudos, I guess.
- golergka 10y agoYes. Chrome web tools say the page takes 1.7 Mb to load (disabled cache and ad block for a clear measurement).
- state_less 10y agoSome people want to know what you're saying with minimal extras added in, saying it should fit on a floppy is a way of pointing to this notion. Alluding to someone being ridiculous because 'floppy disk' isn't very generous to the other person, which is to say you seemed to be missing the point: your site could be more simple and weigh less making it better in the eyes of many on this site.
- StavrosK 10y agoYes. As in, 1.44 megabytes. For a four-paragraph article.
- floatboth 10y ago> a prompt to give over my email address at the bottom That's the point. It's at the bottom, within the normal flow of the document. Not a fucking lightbox popup thing with confirmshaming! > two giant full screen ads ?? I saw one methodhome.com ad, with a cool custom CSS animation on hover, again normally appearing within the article. How is it full screen?