5 ms·
Don’t forget that also 1MB of JavaScript is much much more heavy on the client than 1MB image
by highmastdon 6y ago
Don’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
- jan6 6y agomore the fault of the site devs for not using css media queries, or svg ;p
- Dylan16807 6y agoDoes getting in the club assume you have a low resolution screen? SVG only works in a few places.
- dylan604 6y agoIf you were able to calculate the space in the document flow for those images, I'm fine with the lazy loading. I hate when the page text appears rendered long enough that I start reading, but then lazily loaded items cause the flow to rearrange the text so that I lose my place.
- jan6 6y agoI imagine it should be pretty easy with javascript to set up dummy images, and replace them... probably also doable in pure css, just make them a block element or something, with a set size...
- corobo 6y agoWell if you need them you can't be a part of this 1MB club. It's not a bad thing, it's just a thing.
- z3t4 6y agoYou could use SVG images.
- Lerc 6y agoIndeed, but you also get more bang for your downloaded buck. My toy project https://k8.fingswotidun.com/static/ide/?gist=ad96329670965dc023c5ae740b433ad6 https://k8.fingswotidun.com/static/ide/?gist=ad96329670965dc... Gives you an emulator, an 8-bit AVR Assembler, and an IDE for just over 500k transferred. Almost all of it JavaScript. Using math.js is by far the heaviest part but at least your Asm already knows things like solarMass and planckConstant :-). CodeMirror comes in second heaviest but for user-experience-per-byte you're always going to be streets ahead of a gif.
- szhu 6y agoTrue, but clients can opt to not load (or lazy-load) images without too much adverse effect. JS-heavy sites often completely break without JS.
- rdumont 6y ago> Indeed, but you also get more bang for your downloaded buck. Yet this is most times used to load React to make a button clickable.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y agoYours is an exception to the rule - in 99% cases for 1MB of JS you get 1 MB of ads/tracking code.
- z3t4 6y agoCheck out this app: https://webide.se/?disable=fonts,discoveryBar https://webide.se/?disable=fonts,discoveryBar It's over one hundred thousand lines of JavaScript code minified and Gziped into a 300KB bundle which should fully load in about 300ms on a decent computer.
- wolco2 6y agoThat took 4000ms on a phone.
- z3t4 6y agoWhat hardware/tools did you use to measure?
- thomasz 6y agoWhich is still rather fast. Starting an IDE like Visual Studio on my desktop takes longer.
- yellowapple 6y ago4+ seconds is hardly "rather fast", and being faster to start than Visual Studio is hardly glowing praise.