3 ms·

I can't agree more with the points you make, I've spent a decent amount of time and effort reducing the overhead of my blog, for example - https://goose.us/thou

I can't agree more with the points you make, I've spent a decent amount of time and effort reducing the overhead of my blog, for example - https://goose.us/thoughts/on-the-purpose-of-life/ https://goose.us/thoughts/on-the-purpose-of-life/ That page includes images and "embedded" youtube videos, but loads 454kb of 3,187 words with 10 requests in 450-600ms - if anyone has any suggestions on how to reduce that further, I'd love to hear. Going to bookmark that txti.es service for the future, definitely seems useful for publishing simple content without needing to fit it into a blog theme.

overcast 8y ago
I'd start with the 100+KB PNG images. None of those pictures are complex, they can be compressed much more.
- gooseus 8y ago
  I put them all through ImageOptim, so not sure if those PNGs can compress anymore... I agree on those complexity graphs since they're actually scanned from Sean Carroll's book and edited in Pixelmator - if I was better with graphics I could probably recreate them as SVG or in an editor and make it only a couple kb. Same for the MinutePhysics screen grab, though I couldn't bring myself to attempt a poor recreation of their work and couldn't get rid of the weird pink gradient background which probably prevents better compression. The Youtube cover images are still being pulled in from youtube - I debated downloading/compressing/hosting them myself, but figured I'd gain more from downloading them from the separate domain since I still think there is a default limit of connections the browser will open to a single domain at the same time.
  - overcast 8y ago
    That's because PNG is lossless, use JPG, and you'll dramatically cut down the space.
  - irrational 8y ago
    Have you tried opening the image(s) in Photoshop and try outputting them at different resolutions and compression settings?
Rjevski 8y ago
Ditch the "embedded" videos. Use a screenshot linking to the videos directly. Embedded videos still load a ton of shit and track visitors without their consent.

overcast 8y ago

I'd start with the 100+KB PNG images. None of those pictures are complex, they can be compressed much more.

gooseus 8y ago
I put them all through ImageOptim, so not sure if those PNGs can compress anymore... I agree on those complexity graphs since they're actually scanned from Sean Carroll's book and edited in Pixelmator - if I was better with graphics I could probably recreate them as SVG or in an editor and make it only a couple kb. Same for the MinutePhysics screen grab, though I couldn't bring myself to attempt a poor recreation of their work and couldn't get rid of the weird pink gradient background which probably prevents better compression. The Youtube cover images are still being pulled in from youtube - I debated downloading/compressing/hosting them myself, but figured I'd gain more from downloading them from the separate domain since I still think there is a default limit of connections the browser will open to a single domain at the same time.
- overcast 8y ago
  That's because PNG is lossless, use JPG, and you'll dramatically cut down the space.
- irrational 8y ago
  Have you tried opening the image(s) in Photoshop and try outputting them at different resolutions and compression settings?

Rjevski 8y ago

Ditch the "embedded" videos. Use a screenshot linking to the videos directly. Embedded videos still load a ton of shit and track visitors without their consent.