5 ms·

I do like these frameworks. Far more sites should use one of those or the principle behind them. My page [1] uses concrete [2] and has a page load of 125kb (inc

I do like these frameworks. Far more sites should use one of those or the principle behind them. My page [1] uses concrete [2] and has a page load of 125kb (including my picture) and loads in less than one second. I don't need all that bloat that comes with a lot of pages (checkout wired.com for a negative example). The cards of this one look neat, but in case I need something like that I would add it myself to concrete. Nice place to start never the less. [1] https://marvinblum.de/ https://marvinblum.de/ [2] https://concrete.style/ https://concrete.style/

reaperducer 6y ago
and has a page load of 125kb (including my picture) Imagine what you could get it down to if you just wrote CSS instead of using a framework.
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  11.5KB of CSS, looks like you could probably take it to under 1KB. But the biggest weight is the 93KB 460×460 avatar image which is used in a 100×100 circle. That can be reduced to an decent JPEG of about 10KB without even shrinking it to 100×100. At 100×100 (low-DPI displays), it’s under 5KB. I’d probably go for a single 200×200 image weighing about 8KB. If you wanted to make that page really fast, you’d inline all the CSS and the avatar image, and get it under 14KB so that the entire HTTP message could be transmitted in one TCP packet.
  - marvinblum 6y ago
    Well speed was not the main goal of my site. I just wanted to build something quick. I sometimes use the avatar on my page to upload it somewhere else and a decent resolution is good for that.
  - tln 6y ago
    What network are you on that gives you 14kb packets from the internet? My loopback has MTU of 16kb, everything else is 1500 or less
    - chrismorgan 6y ago
      Oops, off by an order of magnitude, sorry. It’s been a while since I’ve seriously optimised anything in this sort of way (purely for fun).
- louismerlin 6y ago
  The framework he uses is actually 996 bytes minzipped :D (disclaimer : I'm the creator of https://concrete.style https://concrete.style)
marvinblum 6y ago
I updated my page, it now has a page load of 12.1 KB.

reaperducer 6y ago

and has a page load of 125kb (including my picture) Imagine what you could get it down to if you just wrote CSS instead of using a framework.

chrismorgan 6y ago
11.5KB of CSS, looks like you could probably take it to under 1KB. But the biggest weight is the 93KB 460×460 avatar image which is used in a 100×100 circle. That can be reduced to an decent JPEG of about 10KB without even shrinking it to 100×100. At 100×100 (low-DPI displays), it’s under 5KB. I’d probably go for a single 200×200 image weighing about 8KB. If you wanted to make that page really fast, you’d inline all the CSS and the avatar image, and get it under 14KB so that the entire HTTP message could be transmitted in one TCP packet.
- marvinblum 6y ago
  Well speed was not the main goal of my site. I just wanted to build something quick. I sometimes use the avatar on my page to upload it somewhere else and a decent resolution is good for that.
- tln 6y ago
  What network are you on that gives you 14kb packets from the internet? My loopback has MTU of 16kb, everything else is 1500 or less
  - chrismorgan 6y ago
    Oops, off by an order of magnitude, sorry. It’s been a while since I’ve seriously optimised anything in this sort of way (purely for fun).
louismerlin 6y ago
The framework he uses is actually 996 bytes minzipped :D (disclaimer : I'm the creator of https://concrete.style https://concrete.style)

marvinblum 6y ago

I updated my page, it now has a page load of 12.1 KB.