4 ms·
It would be better to evaluate the sites based on the size of non-image resources. E.g, load the site but discard all image files when computing the size so onl
by sxp 6y ago
It would be better to evaluate the sites based on the size of non-image resources. E.g, load the site but discard all image files when computing the size so only text, css, js, etc are counted. Then add the images in separately. That would allow sites with useful images like a photo gallery to still be listed on this page. That would still endorse well designed sites that load the text & CSS instantly so that the reader doesn't need to wait for image loading.
- kevq 6y agoOK. The Guardian's uncompressed homepage with images removed is 3.6 MB. That's still way too big. https://gtmetrix.com/reports/www.theguardian.com/xSnIUn3X/ https://gtmetrix.com/reports/www.theguardian.com/xSnIUn3X/