4 ms·
> IMO the author is barking up a wrong tree That's what I thought, too. Using SVG at all instead of images is a huge win for bandwidth. Adding gzip is painless
by nathan_long 9y ago
> IMO the author is barking up a wrong tree
That's what I thought, too. Using SVG at all instead of images is a huge win for bandwidth. Adding gzip is painless and makes the deliverable tiny. Any further optimization effort would likely be better spent on another part of the site.
Don't get me wrong - it's a great article with very interesting techniques that would be great for very large SVGs. But if your SVG already fits into a single TCP packet (~1500 bytes, according to https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2613734/maximum-packet-size-for-a-tcp-connection https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2613734/maximum-packet-s...), does shrinking it further make any difference?
- kuschku 9y ago> That's what I thought, too. Using SVG at all instead of images is a huge win for bandwidth. Adding gzip is painless and makes the deliverable tiny. Any further optimization effort would likely be better spent on another part of the site. Sometimes that’s the last parts left to do. I’ve recently started working on improving the performance of https://quasseldroid.info/ https://quasseldroid.info/ (I’ve still got to optimize the images), and doing svg optimizations got some SVGs from 14kiB gzipped down to 400 bytes (which meant I could inline them into the CSS). This can be really worth it.