4 ms·
I agree with you about lazy loading. It's just dumb. How is it better to give me a scaffold of a page before the content? The page may look nice but is unusa
by Zelphyr 8y ago
I agree with you about lazy loading. It's just dumb. How is it better to give me a scaffold of a page before the content? The page may look nice but is unusable until the content has loaded. Why not just give me everything when it's ready?
I've gotten into trouble for saying this before but things like recommending lazy loading is an example of Google imposing their wishes on the web and making it worse in the process.
- Calib3r 8y agoI personally like lazy loading as far as UI experiences go. Shoot me.
- alexbecker 8y agoThere are two kinds of lazy loading--that which blocks the content, and that which doesn't. If you have e.g. a bunch of JS libraries that aren't necessary to display the page, only for certain interactions, it makes sense to lazily load those. This is what "lazy loading" meant in my front-end team at Google anyway. (Whether you should even have all of this JS to begin with is another question, however.)
- hyperdimension 8y agoPersonally, I specifically can't stand the lazy loading that happens on youtube/facebook. The kind where there is no text, just shimmering placeholders until the actual content has loaded. I just don't understand why they think I will think their site loads faster if they don't actually have any content right when I click on it, rather than the server actually delivering the page with some modicum of content...