13 ms·
I’d argue that pages that are static with few images should be given preference. Simple CSS rules, no JavaScript (or very little of it), not a ton of images, et
by bradgessler 9y ago
I’d argue that pages that are static with few images should be given preference. Simple CSS rules, no JavaScript (or very little of it), not a ton of images, etc. People from all walks of life are capable of publishing this content and it’s equally as accessible.
Pages that should be heavily penalized are those with lots of extraneous JS, bloated CSS files, lots of auto play videos, and huge image files that are supposedly created by “experts” that need a DevOps team to deploy and distribute all the bloat.
- pmlnr 9y agoWhat if it's a photographers portfolio? An art collection site? Sometimes images make sense.
- rurban 9y agoBut nobody waits longer than 8 seconds. That's the golden webdev rule for ages. Anything above deserved to be punished. Art collections are easy to develop with icons and progressive images.
- pmlnr 9y agoUnless you go there for the artist and you know what you're after. Progressive images... eh. The js you load for it is 3-4x the images at 720p. Progressive jpeg, that's better.