3 ms·
In your second example, the total bytes in the page is 3697 bytes, the CSS makes up 948 bytes of that. You're spending about 25.6% of page weight on the CSS alo
by Karrot_Kream 9y ago
In your second example, the total bytes in the page is 3697 bytes, the CSS makes up 948 bytes of that. You're spending about 25.6% of page weight on the CSS alone in that example. Your first example has a better ratio.
I'm not knocking you, as 3.7 kB is still incredibly light, and I think the point you were going for to begin with was to change the browser default stylesheet. Just wanted to post some stats.
- ComputerGuru 9y agoThanks. Yeah, I wasn't going for the byte-pinching approach (lots of good-old-fashion whitespace, not using css one-liner declarations, not bothering to refactor overlapping styles, etc); like you said, the intention was to simply show how a basic (user|site) stylesheet can result in a vastly more user-friendly result without going overboard. (Now if you want to nitpick... I imagine the css has a better gzip/brotli compression ratio than the html by nature of its repetitive keywords.)
- Karrot_Kream 9y agoYeah cheers on keeping it super readable. Now you've got me googling to figure out how to overwrite User-Agent styling.
- ComputerGuru 9y agoCSS Resets. Most you'll find only are out of date though, and only handle the basic, non-vendor-specific attributes.
- sillysaurus3 9y agoSans underline: https://i.imgur.com/xMogV4q.png https://i.imgur.com/xMogV4q.png
- ComputerGuru 9y ago(Replying to an earlier version of this comment): You’re right. We’ve become - by and large - engrained to associate links with underlines, but in this context it’s not necessarily necessary (though probably a welcome hint for many).