3 ms·
> 1. In an attempt to improve perceived performance on initial load a decision was made not to load all content in at once. In the case of a Twitter thread cont
by croon 7y ago
> 1. In an attempt to improve perceived performance on initial load a decision was made not to load all content in at once. In the case of a Twitter thread containing potentially hundreds of items that’s reasonable, for product descriptions less so.
In an age where web pages are several MB large, bandwidths surpassing 100Mbps, and GPUs alone with 11GB of RAM, we can't render more text on a screen.
This page right now contains around ~8kB of pure text, and everything is already expanded as opposed to most other comment sites. I'm aware that formatting, layout, data modelling, messaging etc increases that amount, and that's fine, I'm just baffled that it's possible to have a slower experience with percievably the same amount of brain-data as 20 years ago, but with hardware that is magnitudes better.
We shouldn't lose this much to UI fluff.
- mewpmewp2 7y agoThe bottleneck would in this case be within YouTube servers that have to fetch the comments. Nothing to do with UI. Since comments work on scale it is possible it takes quite a bit of resources to load them instantly with the video.
- croon 7y agoIt's not directly related, sure. But it's certainly a second order effect of UI choices that has brought us here. They manage to compute (batched and not real time) personal ads tailored to you, load media for this, push a whole bunch of data from your clicks to further this tailoring, push metrics, grab libs from 40 different locations, etc, etc, etc. If we wanted to do some work around getting more text to users and improve the reading experience of sites with at least a portion of them designed for that purpose, we certainly could.
- tpxl 7y agoHN doesn't show every comment if there are too many comments, FYI.