3 ms·
Most websites, however, host stupidly large uncompressed images that are multiple MB in size. Just by simple compression and appropriate file formats, most of t
by asutekku 6y ago
Most websites, however, host stupidly large uncompressed images that are multiple MB in size. Just by simple compression and appropriate file formats, most of this is solved (but a lot of developers do not seem to care about it).
- yoz-y 6y agoYes but even those will usually not fit in the 250kb or 1mb limit. Especially if your homepage is a list of posts and not just links to them. That being said, nobody is forbidding such pages to make their own club.
- asutekku 6y agoIf you have a list of posts, using low resolution thumbnails can be as low as 20-40kb a piece. Sure, if you’re going to have a lot of them you’re not going to get them under 250kb, but still for some reason a lot people serve the high quality photo when a thumbnail suffices.
- saagarjha 6y agoI would guess that at least some of those developers are opposed to lossy compression or using whatever format Chrome supports this week that gives a whatever percent savings. The rest are probably unaware of the issue.
- asutekku 6y agoI wonder why not using jpeg on the front and then serving the full resolution picture when clicked is not more prominent. With all tooling we nowadays have it should be a no-brainer for almost every kind of website.