3 ms·

> and you have to add tons of js and css to get something acceptable No we don't. As I have written before in this topic, HN is the perfect example. It pulls

> and you have to add tons of js and css to get something acceptable No we don't. As I have written before in this topic, HN is the perfect example. It pulls in a small css and js file, both of which are so slim, they don't even require minifying. The resulting page is small, looks good, is performant and most importantly does its jobs. We don't need megabytes worth of cruft to display a good looking page.

fiedzia 5y ago
> HN is the perfect example. It pulls in a small css and js file, both of which are so slim, they don't even require minifying. The resulting page is small, looks good It looks good for technical people. It does not look good for others.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  Pretty sure my mum would love for her recipe websites to fit the entire recipe on screen at once, instead of having to scroll over a gigantic font, interlaced with 4+ irrelevant pictures of smiling people holding fruits and 2 ad banners, canceling the ubiquitous "we use cokkies balabla.." popup and maybe some full-page ad-overlay. I am also sure she would love these selfsame pages to load instantly when shes accessing them via her old cell phone at my uncles house where reception is bad and the device has to revert to 3G. No, "other" people don't want bloat, tons of adds and "clever designs" (aka. a huge useless picture-banner that contains zero information) either.
  - fiedzia 5y ago
    Great examples. Downloaded size for top 3 sites for recipes: https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/ https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/ - 12MB https://www.jamieoliver.com/ https://www.jamieoliver.com/ - 4.3MB https://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/ https://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/ - 8.4MB It seems their users didn't wanted them to be so barebone. I am not saying people want bloat, but they won't accept HN-style simplicity. What I'd like to have is good looking sites with no CSS at all, just make them acceptable by default, and a lot of this bloat will simply go away.

fiedzia 5y ago

> HN is the perfect example. It pulls in a small css and js file, both of which are so slim, they don't even require minifying. The resulting page is small, looks good It looks good for technical people. It does not look good for others.

usrbinbash 5y ago
Pretty sure my mum would love for her recipe websites to fit the entire recipe on screen at once, instead of having to scroll over a gigantic font, interlaced with 4+ irrelevant pictures of smiling people holding fruits and 2 ad banners, canceling the ubiquitous "we use cokkies balabla.." popup and maybe some full-page ad-overlay. I am also sure she would love these selfsame pages to load instantly when shes accessing them via her old cell phone at my uncles house where reception is bad and the device has to revert to 3G. No, "other" people don't want bloat, tons of adds and "clever designs" (aka. a huge useless picture-banner that contains zero information) either.
- fiedzia 5y ago
  Great examples. Downloaded size for top 3 sites for recipes: https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/ https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/ - 12MB https://www.jamieoliver.com/ https://www.jamieoliver.com/ - 4.3MB https://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/ https://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/ - 8.4MB It seems their users didn't wanted them to be so barebone. I am not saying people want bloat, but they won't accept HN-style simplicity. What I'd like to have is good looking sites with no CSS at all, just make them acceptable by default, and a lot of this bloat will simply go away.