5 ms·

> It's causing a fair amount of panic, because 96% of sites fail the test. Good. That sounds like a realistic estimation of the number of slow and bloated webs

> It's causing a fair amount of panic, because 96% of sites fail the test. Good. That sounds like a realistic estimation of the number of slow and bloated websites. What good are nice animations and designs when they destroy the UX? You'll never see someone gaming in 4k with hardware that can't render it with more than 15FPS. Yet we see that kind of "tradeoff" every time we browse the web. Users get loading times for the site itself, then processing of JS to redundantly do the browser's job of arranging the 20 layers of <div>s, then loading animations for the actual contents, and then a couple seconds after that you might get the first thumbnails. And I'm absolutely not surprised Google's pages fail this test as well; Everything from Google Images to YouTube got increasingly worse with every new design iteration, with both slower loading times as well as an increase in breakage.

eric__cartman 5y ago
The amount of bloat in modern websites always amazed me. I remember the first computer I ever had, a hand me down from my parents with 512MB of ram and a single core 1.6GHz cpu (yes I'm a zoomer and wasn't even born in the good ole days of dialup internet and Windows 95) and all websites I visited ran just fine. I could open many browser tabs and do all the things one normally does in a website. The only main difference maybe is that video playback nowadays is done at much higher resolutions and bitrate. And web apps were a very new (or maybe even non-existent) concept. But still, nowadays I see my web browser using 1GB+ of memory with a few tabs open containing some newspaper articles and perhaps a couple other misc non media heavy websites. This is madness. When not using an ad blocker, the amount of data that a regular website loads that's not relevant for what you need to read (so no text and images included) is huge. I can understand why some complex web apps like Google Docs or whatever the cloud version of MS Office is called may be quite more resource intensive than a magazine article, but there is no reason why a newspaper or cooking recipe site should use memory in the hundreds of megabytes, when the useful content itself that the reader cares about is maybe (with images included) a couple megabytes in total.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > When not using an ad blocker why would any sane person ever do this? oh right, mobile. so let me ask a different way: why would any sane person ever browse the web on any platform that does not have effective ad blocking?
  - lupire 5y ago
    Mobile.
    - meowster 5y ago
      Friends don't let friends use anything but FireFox with uBlock Origin, on Android... Sorry iPhone users :-/
      - prophesi 5y ago
        On iPhone, I use Wipr which handles blocking the majority of ads.
        artificial 5y ago
        Also an option is NextDNS, Raspberry Pi without the hassle. A combination of 1Blocker and NextDNS works pretty decent.
  - eric__cartman 5y ago
    My mom's first response after I deployed AdGuard Home in her network was "I don't know what you did but my phone feels faster" lol
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    I don't mind ads, only have an issue with performance and tracking. My browsing habits are such that very occasionally I stumble upon a website full of ads and it's startling.
- 5y ago
nicbou 5y ago
My site didn't initially pass the test, and the fix indeed improved the experience on slower devices.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

eric__cartman 5y ago

The amount of bloat in modern websites always amazed me. I remember the first computer I ever had, a hand me down from my parents with 512MB of ram and a single core 1.6GHz cpu (yes I'm a zoomer and wasn't even born in the good ole days of dialup internet and Windows 95) and all websites I visited ran just fine. I could open many browser tabs and do all the things one normally does in a website. The only main difference maybe is that video playback nowadays is done at much higher resolutions and bitrate. And web apps were a very new (or maybe even non-existent) concept. But still, nowadays I see my web browser using 1GB+ of memory with a few tabs open containing some newspaper articles and perhaps a couple other misc non media heavy websites. This is madness. When not using an ad blocker, the amount of data that a regular website loads that's not relevant for what you need to read (so no text and images included) is huge. I can understand why some complex web apps like Google Docs or whatever the cloud version of MS Office is called may be quite more resource intensive than a magazine article, but there is no reason why a newspaper or cooking recipe site should use memory in the hundreds of megabytes, when the useful content itself that the reader cares about is maybe (with images included) a couple megabytes in total.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> When not using an ad blocker why would any sane person ever do this? oh right, mobile. so let me ask a different way: why would any sane person ever browse the web on any platform that does not have effective ad blocking?
- lupire 5y ago
  Mobile.
  - meowster 5y ago
    Friends don't let friends use anything but FireFox with uBlock Origin, on Android... Sorry iPhone users :-/
    - prophesi 5y ago
      On iPhone, I use Wipr which handles blocking the majority of ads.
      - artificial 5y ago
        Also an option is NextDNS, Raspberry Pi without the hassle. A combination of 1Blocker and NextDNS works pretty decent.
- eric__cartman 5y ago
  My mom's first response after I deployed AdGuard Home in her network was "I don't know what you did but my phone feels faster" lol
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  I don't mind ads, only have an issue with performance and tracking. My browsing habits are such that very occasionally I stumble upon a website full of ads and it's startling.
5y ago

nicbou 5y ago

My site didn't initially pass the test, and the fix indeed improved the experience on slower devices.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]