4 ms·

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.

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.