7 ms·

Not really that much interesting you can do with 10 kB it seems like.

by ecmascript 6y ago

Seirdy 6y ago
This is a feature, not a bug. Sites should be made "interesting" with content rather than form, IMO.
- ecmascript 6y ago
  Well, just adding one single image would exceed the 10kB page weight.
  - Seirdy 6y ago
    IMO, a profile pic is better for an "about" page. The 10 KB Club excludes favicons and the like from page size, since they're non-blocking and not needed to read an article's text.
    - susam 6y ago
      For what it's worth, even a large 256x256 PNG favicon can fit within 1 KB to 2 KB size if properly optimized, say, using ImageOptim or another similar tool.
      - fireattack 6y ago
        > if properly optimized It's more about the content of the image, the optimization can only do so much. If it's a pixel art or the palette is reduced to hell, then yeah, probably; otherwise I don't think you can display a 256x256 photo in 2KB.
      - shakna 6y ago
        > For what it's worth, even a large 256x256 PNG favicon can fit within 1 KB to 2 KB size if properly optimized, say, using ImageOptim or another similar tool. This is a heavily optimised PNG favicon [0], which is only 192x192. But without trashing the palette, I can't really deduce it further, and it's already 2.7K. Niether pngcrush nor imageoptim can do much with it. [0] https://shatterealm.netlify.app/android-chrome-192x192.png https://shatterealm.netlify.app/android-chrome-192x192.png
        lifthrasiir 6y ago
        I tried zopflipng [1] with the very expensive option suggested from the usage and got 2,493 bytes (original 2,740 bytes, nowhere practical as it took 3 minutes) so you don't have to sacrifice the palette, though I'm not sure if 16 or even 4 color palette will significantly alter the visual. [1] https://github.com/google/zopfli https://github.com/google/zopfli
        shakna 6y ago
        It's already an 8bit grayscale image - significantly less than a 4 colour palette. And whilst the server might use state of the art compression... There's still no way a much larger image is going to fit in the proposed 1-2K limit.
    - ecmascript 6y ago
      Profile pic? Ok.. I have genuine question for you: Do you masturbate to text as well?
    - onion2k 6y ago
      All images are non-blocking, not just favicons. If a site uses the loading=lazy attribute they won't even be loaded until they're on the screen. Background images in in-line CSS can block rendering in some older browsers but that's really the url() bit that's blocking rather than the image.
mrweasel 6y ago
You can do many interesting things with 10kB. One of the sites is a blog, that may be interesting, depending on the content.
7373737373 6y ago
Here's chess in 1kb of Javascript: https://nanochess.org/archive/tiny_chess_1.html https://nanochess.org/archive/tiny_chess_1.html (from here: https://nanochess.org/chess.html https://nanochess.org/chess.html) In fact, I just started a resource limited chess program competition: https://rlc-chess.com https://rlc-chess.com

Not really that much interesting you can do with 10 kB it seems like.

Seirdy 6y ago

This is a feature, not a bug. Sites should be made "interesting" with content rather than form, IMO.

ecmascript 6y ago
Well, just adding one single image would exceed the 10kB page weight.
- Seirdy 6y ago
  IMO, a profile pic is better for an "about" page. The 10 KB Club excludes favicons and the like from page size, since they're non-blocking and not needed to read an article's text.
  - susam 6y ago
    For what it's worth, even a large 256x256 PNG favicon can fit within 1 KB to 2 KB size if properly optimized, say, using ImageOptim or another similar tool.
    - fireattack 6y ago
      > if properly optimized It's more about the content of the image, the optimization can only do so much. If it's a pixel art or the palette is reduced to hell, then yeah, probably; otherwise I don't think you can display a 256x256 photo in 2KB.
    - shakna 6y ago
      > For what it's worth, even a large 256x256 PNG favicon can fit within 1 KB to 2 KB size if properly optimized, say, using ImageOptim or another similar tool. This is a heavily optimised PNG favicon [0], which is only 192x192. But without trashing the palette, I can't really deduce it further, and it's already 2.7K. Niether pngcrush nor imageoptim can do much with it. [0] https://shatterealm.netlify.app/android-chrome-192x192.png https://shatterealm.netlify.app/android-chrome-192x192.png
      - lifthrasiir 6y ago
        I tried zopflipng [1] with the very expensive option suggested from the usage and got 2,493 bytes (original 2,740 bytes, nowhere practical as it took 3 minutes) so you don't have to sacrifice the palette, though I'm not sure if 16 or even 4 color palette will significantly alter the visual. [1] https://github.com/google/zopfli https://github.com/google/zopfli
        shakna 6y ago
        It's already an 8bit grayscale image - significantly less than a 4 colour palette. And whilst the server might use state of the art compression... There's still no way a much larger image is going to fit in the proposed 1-2K limit.
  - ecmascript 6y ago
    Profile pic? Ok.. I have genuine question for you: Do you masturbate to text as well?
  - onion2k 6y ago
    All images are non-blocking, not just favicons. If a site uses the loading=lazy attribute they won't even be loaded until they're on the screen. Background images in in-line CSS can block rendering in some older browsers but that's really the url() bit that's blocking rather than the image.

mrweasel 6y ago

You can do many interesting things with 10kB. One of the sites is a blog, that may be interesting, depending on the content.

7373737373 6y ago

Here's chess in 1kb of Javascript: https://nanochess.org/archive/tiny_chess_1.html https://nanochess.org/archive/tiny_chess_1.html (from here: https://nanochess.org/chess.html https://nanochess.org/chess.html) In fact, I just started a resource limited chess program competition: https://rlc-chess.com https://rlc-chess.com