7 ms·

The page looks like https://i.imgur.com/RqWJb7Q.png https://i.imgur.com/RqWJb7Q.png for more than 20 seconds until it finishes loading and then just keeps on do

by ebg13 7y ago

The page looks like https://i.imgur.com/RqWJb7Q.png https://i.imgur.com/RqWJb7Q.png for more than 20 seconds until it finishes loading and then just keeps on downloading more and more and more data (400MB and counting). Pardon me if I ignore their ideas about design.

taspeotis 7y ago
https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdesign.google%2Flibrary%2Fgoogle-design-2019%2F https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=... > Avoid enormous network payloads Total size was 64,215 KB
- ebg13 7y ago
  The total size if you don't do anything on the page is already bad, but it's also different than if you actually try scrolling. Scroll down to the bottom and watch what happens. Also lol at them having the gall to give their desktop page a 97/100 and then saying "Use video formats for animated content. Estimated Savings: 42.57s" 42.57s!
  - pound 7y ago
    And then once you've reached the bottom of the page (and assumed that page is loaded in full) scroll back up. It just keeps loading that data again and again
jkoudys 7y ago
Wouldn't be a tech forum without comments trying to minimize the accomplishments of others.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  I think that's unfair. OP is pointing out what he considers to be poor design on a site meant to celebrate great design. Pointing out hypocrisy (not saying I agree with OP or not) is different from unconstructive criticism.
- endorphone 7y ago
  The page design is atrocious. That isn't an accomplishment. Furthermore, a Google design page where they herald their own designs? Eh...they can pay advertising dollars for that. Google isn't enough of a design leader for such a self-congratulatory pedestal.
- spectramax 7y ago
  No, it’s not about minimizing work of others. When a company is downloading 400MB of a webpage, I don’t care who it is - it needs to be criticized. Who in the right mind is in charge of this bloat at Google? I wonder what goes into the engineer’s minds when they try to build a page like this one. Goes into the same bucket as IBM Plex font page.
  - userbinator 7y ago
    People working at Google are probably given a powerful computer with an outrageously fast Internet connection, which naturally leads to things like this not being noticeable for them. Combine that with a lack of intuitive notions of size[1] and the prevalent dogma of avoiding "premature optimisation" and it's not hard to see how this was created. [1] It's not just "non-computer people" who don't understand the units. I've taught students who have no trouble writing code or doing the maths in CS, but wouldn't be able to appreciate just how much 1MB of text is, or why trying to send me a 15MB screenshot as an email attachment is a bad idea.
    - spectramax 7y ago
      I don’t buy that. Just looking at the network tab in Chrome can put things into perspective. I presume engineers at Google don’t run their own performance/speed utility: https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=Design.google https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=... Design.google page scores an appalling, an abysmal score of 11/100. There is no defense to this behavior - these are professionals who are paid well and are supposed to be the brightest engineers on the planet, and yet they can’t design a page that meets their own standards for quality. 11/100 is shameful.
      - dave_sullivan 7y ago
        Spent the whole interview whiteboarding algorithms, forgot to ask about shrinking js bundle sizes. Google doesn’t concern itself with such menial concepts, just too busy saving the world by selling ads.
    - 7y ago
ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago
That "A Space for Being" room, you know we need in our lives? More mirrors.
partiallypro 7y ago
I love how Google punishes above the folder render blocking in their speed tests, but can't even get it right internally. I've had so many clients complain about render blocking because of Lighthouse, and it take so much time to explain why that isn't always a problem, and sometimes is required when you're using certain js or js libraries. Supposedly Chrome is testing a splash page for sites that shows average speed test grades, I'm sure they'll whitelist their own products.
forrestthewoods 7y ago
Does a 9 megabyte .gif with horrible artifacting count as good design? Asking for a friend.
- ebg13 7y ago
  If one isn't good, surely having many of them will improve the situation.
userbinator 7y ago
400MB and counting To put that into perspective, that's about 37 minutes of uncompressed CD-quality audio, 20 minutes of high-quality 720p H264 video, or a full installation of Windows 98SE. All of which I think offer far more content for the size than this page. That said, at least the page is still readable with JS and CSS off, unlike a lot of other pages-turned-into-apps I've seen.
ggggtez 7y ago
I only count 67 MB, with cache disabled an no add-ons.
- ebg13 7y ago
  Same for me if I don't do anything on the page. But then if I actually scroll the page it gets exuberant. I think it's loading the same assets many times in parallel and possibly repeatedly. Also, "only", lol. Look at this hilarious bucket of shit: https://i.imgur.com/36CBn5y.png https://i.imgur.com/36CBn5y.png And that's in Chrome! Firefox actually handles this page's bullshit gracefully, by saying "NO! FUCK OFF, WEBPAGE!" ("Will-change memory consumption is too high. Budget limit is the document surface area multiplied by 3 (730032 px). Occurrences of will-change over the budget will be ignored.")
  - Stratoscope 7y ago
    In all fairness, you probably have the "disable cache" box checked in your developer tools. If you turn that off, the multiple duplicate requests in the network tab go away. Presumably the duplicates get served from cache. Of course it would be better if they didn't make duplicate requests in the first place!
    - nimos 7y ago
      Yeah it works out OK with caching. Very easy to track down with the new initiator tab on the in Chrome Dev Tools. They have _initLightBoxItems which removes all the images/gifs from the dom and then readds them which is bound to the scroll event (with a 50ms throttle).
- bathtub365 7y ago
  67MB is big for a webpage.
iudqnolq 7y ago
Not only that, they swap in a fancier font after it loads which has slightly different text sizes. This causes everything to jump around as you're reading it. Wasn't the whole FOUC issue known by designers years and years ago? It jumped around 2 seconds into load for me, and I'm on reasonably fast WiFi less than 100mi from Google HQ!
thekyle 7y ago
I only counted 64 MB, but still this page took 3.18 minutes to fully load according to my Firefox devtools.
- ebg13 7y ago
  Try scrolling the page in Chrome (https://i.imgur.com/36CBn5y.png https://i.imgur.com/36CBn5y.png)

by ebg13 7y ago

taspeotis 7y ago

https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdesign.google%2Flibrary%2Fgoogle-design-2019%2F https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=... > Avoid enormous network payloads Total size was 64,215 KB

ebg13 7y ago
The total size if you don't do anything on the page is already bad, but it's also different than if you actually try scrolling. Scroll down to the bottom and watch what happens. Also lol at them having the gall to give their desktop page a 97/100 and then saying "Use video formats for animated content. Estimated Savings: 42.57s" 42.57s!
- pound 7y ago
  And then once you've reached the bottom of the page (and assumed that page is loaded in full) scroll back up. It just keeps loading that data again and again

jkoudys 7y ago

Wouldn't be a tech forum without comments trying to minimize the accomplishments of others.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
I think that's unfair. OP is pointing out what he considers to be poor design on a site meant to celebrate great design. Pointing out hypocrisy (not saying I agree with OP or not) is different from unconstructive criticism.
endorphone 7y ago
The page design is atrocious. That isn't an accomplishment. Furthermore, a Google design page where they herald their own designs? Eh...they can pay advertising dollars for that. Google isn't enough of a design leader for such a self-congratulatory pedestal.
spectramax 7y ago
No, it’s not about minimizing work of others. When a company is downloading 400MB of a webpage, I don’t care who it is - it needs to be criticized. Who in the right mind is in charge of this bloat at Google? I wonder what goes into the engineer’s minds when they try to build a page like this one. Goes into the same bucket as IBM Plex font page.
- userbinator 7y ago
  People working at Google are probably given a powerful computer with an outrageously fast Internet connection, which naturally leads to things like this not being noticeable for them. Combine that with a lack of intuitive notions of size[1] and the prevalent dogma of avoiding "premature optimisation" and it's not hard to see how this was created. [1] It's not just "non-computer people" who don't understand the units. I've taught students who have no trouble writing code or doing the maths in CS, but wouldn't be able to appreciate just how much 1MB of text is, or why trying to send me a 15MB screenshot as an email attachment is a bad idea.
  - spectramax 7y ago
    I don’t buy that. Just looking at the network tab in Chrome can put things into perspective. I presume engineers at Google don’t run their own performance/speed utility: https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=Design.google https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=... Design.google page scores an appalling, an abysmal score of 11/100. There is no defense to this behavior - these are professionals who are paid well and are supposed to be the brightest engineers on the planet, and yet they can’t design a page that meets their own standards for quality. 11/100 is shameful.
    - dave_sullivan 7y ago
      Spent the whole interview whiteboarding algorithms, forgot to ask about shrinking js bundle sizes. Google doesn’t concern itself with such menial concepts, just too busy saving the world by selling ads.
  - 7y ago

ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago

That "A Space for Being" room, you know we need in our lives? More mirrors.

partiallypro 7y ago

I love how Google punishes above the folder render blocking in their speed tests, but can't even get it right internally. I've had so many clients complain about render blocking because of Lighthouse, and it take so much time to explain why that isn't always a problem, and sometimes is required when you're using certain js or js libraries. Supposedly Chrome is testing a splash page for sites that shows average speed test grades, I'm sure they'll whitelist their own products.

forrestthewoods 7y ago

Does a 9 megabyte .gif with horrible artifacting count as good design? Asking for a friend.

ebg13 7y ago
If one isn't good, surely having many of them will improve the situation.

userbinator 7y ago

400MB and counting To put that into perspective, that's about 37 minutes of uncompressed CD-quality audio, 20 minutes of high-quality 720p H264 video, or a full installation of Windows 98SE. All of which I think offer far more content for the size than this page. That said, at least the page is still readable with JS and CSS off, unlike a lot of other pages-turned-into-apps I've seen.

ggggtez 7y ago

I only count 67 MB, with cache disabled an no add-ons.

ebg13 7y ago
Same for me if I don't do anything on the page. But then if I actually scroll the page it gets exuberant. I think it's loading the same assets many times in parallel and possibly repeatedly. Also, "only", lol. Look at this hilarious bucket of shit: https://i.imgur.com/36CBn5y.png https://i.imgur.com/36CBn5y.png And that's in Chrome! Firefox actually handles this page's bullshit gracefully, by saying "NO! FUCK OFF, WEBPAGE!" ("Will-change memory consumption is too high. Budget limit is the document surface area multiplied by 3 (730032 px). Occurrences of will-change over the budget will be ignored.")
- Stratoscope 7y ago
  In all fairness, you probably have the "disable cache" box checked in your developer tools. If you turn that off, the multiple duplicate requests in the network tab go away. Presumably the duplicates get served from cache. Of course it would be better if they didn't make duplicate requests in the first place!
  - nimos 7y ago
    Yeah it works out OK with caching. Very easy to track down with the new initiator tab on the in Chrome Dev Tools. They have _initLightBoxItems which removes all the images/gifs from the dom and then readds them which is bound to the scroll event (with a 50ms throttle).
bathtub365 7y ago
67MB is big for a webpage.

iudqnolq 7y ago

Not only that, they swap in a fancier font after it loads which has slightly different text sizes. This causes everything to jump around as you're reading it. Wasn't the whole FOUC issue known by designers years and years ago? It jumped around 2 seconds into load for me, and I'm on reasonably fast WiFi less than 100mi from Google HQ!

thekyle 7y ago

I only counted 64 MB, but still this page took 3.18 minutes to fully load according to my Firefox devtools.

ebg13 7y ago
Try scrolling the page in Chrome (https://i.imgur.com/36CBn5y.png https://i.imgur.com/36CBn5y.png)