7 ms·
I love it! I feel like the 1MB limit is excessively generous, especially for text-only pages. But maybe that's what makes it so damning when pages fail to adh
by yellowapple 6y ago
I love it!
I feel like the 1MB limit is excessively generous, especially for text-only pages. But maybe that's what makes it so damning when pages fail to adhere to it. I know at least one website I maintain fails it spectacularly (though in my defense it's entirely because of that website being chock-full of photos, and full-res ones at that; pages without those are well under that 1MB mark), while other sites I've built consist entirely of pages within a fraction of that limit.
It'd be interesting to impose a stricter limitation to the 1MB Club: one where all pages on a given site are within that limit. This would disqualify Craigslist, for example (the listing search pages blow that limit out of the water, and the listings themselves sometimes do, too).
I also wonder how many sites 1mb.club would have to show on one page before it, too, ends up disqualifying itself. Might be worthwhile to start thinking about site categories sooner rather than later if everyone and their mothers starts spamming that GitHub issues page with sites (like I'm doing right now).
- divbzero 6y agoAgreed. 1MB seems more reasonable as a per-site threshold. Or, alternatively, somewhere between 10kB and 100kB as a per-page threshold. For context, 1MB is the same order of magnitude as the original Doom which was about 2.4MB in size. [1] [1]: https://www.wired.com/2016/04/average-webpage-now-size-original-doom/ https://www.wired.com/2016/04/average-webpage-now-size-origi...
- Chris2048 6y agoI think it should be relative to content. As in versus actual text on the screen. This metric can also be applied "per-page" and "per-site", with less ambiguity for SPAs; every new load brings in more bytes, but also more text, thereby contributing to the ratio. Even better - fixed site-wide assets (i.e css, js) to features; hence loading an entire framework only to use a small % of it's features is penalised.
- highmastdon 6y agoDon’t forget that also 1MB of JavaScript is much much more heavy on the client than 1MB image
- charlesdaniels 6y agoAt the risk of over-complicating things, perhaps there could be limits per resource type. 10Mb of images might be reasonable (e.g. for a photojournal), but only 128KB of JS, and 128KB for everything else. Something along those lines.
- SilasX 6y agoYeah I was surprised they included pictures in the limit at all -- I mean, sometimes, you need those pictures, and for them to load slower is less important so long as you don't need them to navigate the page.
- Aeolun 6y agoI’m not surprised. The whole point of it is that you can reasonably load it over 3g. If you have a few megs of images that never show up because they take too long to load, there is no point.
- phkahler 6y agoYou dont really need full size/resolution images on a web page.
- SilasX 6y agoYeah true but even with small images, you can hit that cap quickly.
- phponpcp 6y agoYou do for full width retina images on 1440p+ monitors.
- SulfurHexaFluri 6y agoYou people are why some sites have ugly blurry logos/images on my 4k screen
- 6y ago
- CarelessExpert 6y ago> I feel like the 1MB limit is excessively generous, especially for text-only pages. No kidding. I just checked and the average text-only page on my blog well under 100kb. Even the image-heavy front page is under 1MB...
- corobo 6y agoI was pleasantly surprised to find the same! Even the page where I used images came in at juuuust about the limit -- to the point where you'd have to make a ruling of whether the rest of the page gzipped counted because over the wire was technically <1MB but it was just above after decompress. The site does specifically say "downloaded", haha
- meshaneian 6y agoNext level: The 1MB Quine Club.
- mixcocam 6y agoTiddlywiki
- josmala 6y agoSomething about all pages being under limit the limit instead of every page being under the limit changes the exact meaning to something that I cannot agree with. Which was the meaning I replied below and then wrote this after realizing you might of meant every when you wrote all. Lets say you write a daily blog. A single A4 of text contains on average 3000 characters, your posts average slightly above that by being 4000 characters. How long until the text content alone is above the 1MB limit. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/all-or-every https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/all...
- Retric 6y agoI doubt you can find a single text blog on a specific topic that wouldn’t be improved by limiting it’s total text to 1MB. Being more verbose is generally just poor writing. Now, using a separate website per topic seems like a silly limitation, but the more topics being discussed the less relevant the discussion.
- yellowapple 6y agoYeah, I did mean "every" rather than "all", as you put it. Though both would be interesting.
- ngcc_hk 6y agoDo they check the 1 MB limit?
- zer0tonin 6y agoLooks like they do yes.
- thdrdt 6y agoI think an onload limit is much more useful than file size. A 700kB JavaScript page can take up to 10 sec. to render on older mobile devices. And a 500kB image can contain megapixels which will slow down non-PGU browsers. Personally I always go for a max 2 sec. limit on all devices.
- meerita 6y ago500kb is even crazy imho, unless you need to display media formats
- masswerk 6y agoPersonally, I stuck to the 40K best practice recommendation for the basic web page as a target, which was in place when I started. Modified to up to 140K including webfonts. Notably, this is without images. (This is a flexible target, depending on the complexity of a page. E.g. for a "bloated" page, a fully styled video display for competition winners showing 200+ entries and 280+ individual videos in categorized views is about 250K, including a few images, two and a half font families and the Vimeo Player SDK, but excluding the load of any external video streams. However, with compression we still manage the 140K mark.) Then reality hits: Client insists on a full-width photographic hero image as it's still 2014. Usual controversies about a full-size intro video (autoplay, of course), we must have this highly intrusive chat asset installed, etc, etc… – And we easily blow the 1MB limit.