3 ms·
> - Images ballooned in size by a megabyte (without adding much extra requests) For some reason, around the time "digital native" design and designers got big,
by ashark 9y ago
> - Images ballooned in size by a megabyte (without adding much extra requests)
For some reason, around the time "digital native" design and designers got big, it suddenly became OK to include giant design-only images (not content, not a logo, not even a fancy button, just because the designer wanted a giant image) in web pages, which before was one of those things you Just Didn't Do in proper web design. It's gotten so bad that now it's done with videos. Web old-timers find this to be in shockingly poor taste, but that's where we are. Bring back the "bad" print-background designers, I say.
- jonas21 9y agoThis didn't just happen by accident. It happened because the market demanded it. At a previous company I was at, we A/B tested this, and an image-heavy design did better on every relevant metric we could think of (and I assume many others have done the same).
- sageikosa 9y agoLike a peacock, it signals the health of the organization that produced it because of the resources brought to bear on otherwise frivolous things.
- Bartweiss 9y agoA particular hatred of mine are "load-under" images. You know, the ones designed to look like a cutaway into the page, so you load 1000 pixels of height, but see a sliding 400 pixels of the image as you scroll. It's like a microcosm of everything wrong with modern web design. It's wasteful on data, wasteful on memory, obscures useful information (like the actual picture), and actively distracts from the surrounding text. But it looks fancy, so it's not going anywhere.