3 ms·
Just because you can. The page loaded instantaneously on my 1Gbps link. My phone on 4G loaded it fine too. It is also very much possible that Internet Explore
by BrandoElFollito 6y ago
Just because you can.
The page loaded instantaneously on my 1Gbps link. My phone on 4G loaded it fine too.
It is also very much possible that Internet Explorer 3 is not supported either.
Yes, this is a rant in reply to yours because some people have better things to do than to analyze DevTools outputs to say the 12654 bytes were loaded instead of 12341 over 50 calls instead of 27.
I am personally very, very found of the philosophy of https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ and truly believe that this is how web sites with information should look like. But the ones that are readable on my devices are great too. And I do not give a shit about the volume because I do not have to.
And yes, this is horribly annoying to those who have 120x50 displays over a 6kbps link with 1 MB of capping.
- square_usual 6y agoExcept, you don't need to look at DevTools. As I've mentioned in response to a sibling comment, Wordpress has existed for ages, can be themed as you want, has comments and powerful analytics, and delivers 3.5x the content in half as much bandwidth and requests at one fifth the time required. And of course, it'll be readable on whatever device you have, with or without snarky hyperbole.
- BrandoElFollito 6y agoCertainly, but so what? The site loads perfectly on my devices so I am happy. It probably loads the same on many other evergreen-ish devices with a decent bandwidth available. Like I said - I like minimal web sites but the ones that works are fine as well. This one works, I would have never wondered about the weight without your comment. If a site starts to load slowly or is not readable, I will just skip it.