4 ms·
I feel this site shows why websites need more than 512kb these days... Most of these are just unaesthetic, simple personal sites with a few blog posts. Nothing
by ryanyl 6y ago
I feel this site shows why websites need more than 512kb these days... Most of these are just unaesthetic, simple personal sites with a few blog posts. Nothing wrong with that but nothing to glorify either.
- systemvoltage 6y ago> Most of these are just unaesthetic Huh, I didn't think it costs kilobytes to buy aesthetics.
- zdragnar 6y agoCustom fonts, images that look nice on retina / hdpi screens, complex responsive layouts can all add up. Images are obviously the worst offender, but the rest all contribute. Of course, aesthetics are a matter of subjectivity, so what is pleasing to one might be gaudy or bare to another. It is largely a matter of picking your audience, I think.
- sxp 6y agoIf the site uses good CSS & SVG graphics, it would still be possible to get nice layouts and high res graphics without bloat.
- minikomi 6y agoAgreed, this site needs tags like "only text", "app", "simple blog", "list of links" ... Clicked on about 4 pages and all were "Hi this is a simple site of links I like!" type pages.
- nicbou 6y ago512kb is still a lot of space to play with. My website - the one I live from - is about half of that, except on longer articles. That's despite large header images and quality-of-life JavaScript. It wasn't very hard to keep it that way.