5 ms·

Please, stop using heavy images: bloated-kde.png is 3.2Mb... The image is still loading in the moment of writing... Same note for the website logo: render-smal

Please, stop using heavy images: bloated-kde.png is 3.2Mb... The image is still loading in the moment of writing... Same note for the website logo: render-small.gif is 4Mb. Still loading...

CarVac 5y ago
I was halfway into the article and then the fonts started loading.
numlock86 5y ago
There's people like me that already get a bad feeling about their entire landing page including all assets breaking the 1MB barrier: "Having an image in the >150kB range? Ewww, let's put that quality slider further to the left!" But this guy? Wow! Having 4MB as a logo that makes up only 38x38 pixels on a 1080p screen is an absolute chad move when it comes to bandwidth. And yes, the website is still loading here, too. I wonder why ... :^)
- conaclos 5y ago
  Strangely, one of the image is okish: bloated-lxdm.png is 216Kb.
  - djbusby 5y ago
    Some how the light-weight-ness of LXDM passed through the screen-shooter! Wow!
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
zinekeller 5y ago
> Same note for the website logo: render-small.gif is 4Mb. Still loading... I'm still in process of saving that one, but I can tell that's a GIF animation. Update: It's 240 frames of a spinning dodecahedron.
kevincox 5y ago
Even applying better PNG compression reduces them to less than a third of the size. Beyond that you can consider if the full resolution and quality is actually critical to the article.
- bmn__ 5y ago
  Applying a bare amount of image optimisation: original 3_389_491 B pngout 2_739_324 B quantised 256 colours+pngout 636_135 B webp lossless 2_210_112 B webp default settings (lossy) 210_452 B
Spivak 5y ago
This kind of advice will never work because it requires people to remember to do it. The right approach is "whatever SSG you use add some code to generate different size images and then use srcset."
- conaclos 5y ago
  Another solution could be to test the website with different bandwidths. Modern browser have dedicated tools for that.
nimbius 5y ago
the guy just installed every package for arch. im...not entirely sure they comprehend the concept of bloat...
perihelions 5y ago
This page is an advertisement for uMatrix. I am seeing a perfectly readable, very elegant webpage in 37 kB of total network transfer. (It really is nice: the syntax highlighting is tasteful). Permitting: 1p CSS; denying: everything else, including fonts (in uBlock).
theandrewbailey 5y ago
It seems that the site has changed. I'm loading less than 600k for this page (scripts, images, fonts... everything).
- conaclos 5y ago
  Yep: every image is now in webp. I am glad that my comment improved this website :)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Please, stop using heavy images: bloated-kde.png is 3.2Mb... The image is still loading in the moment of writing... Same note for the website logo: render-small.gif is 4Mb. Still loading...

CarVac 5y ago

I was halfway into the article and then the fonts started loading.

numlock86 5y ago

There's people like me that already get a bad feeling about their entire landing page including all assets breaking the 1MB barrier: "Having an image in the >150kB range? Ewww, let's put that quality slider further to the left!" But this guy? Wow! Having 4MB as a logo that makes up only 38x38 pixels on a 1080p screen is an absolute chad move when it comes to bandwidth. And yes, the website is still loading here, too. I wonder why ... :^)

conaclos 5y ago
Strangely, one of the image is okish: bloated-lxdm.png is 216Kb.
- djbusby 5y ago
  Some how the light-weight-ness of LXDM passed through the screen-shooter! Wow!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

zinekeller 5y ago

> Same note for the website logo: render-small.gif is 4Mb. Still loading... I'm still in process of saving that one, but I can tell that's a GIF animation. Update: It's 240 frames of a spinning dodecahedron.

kevincox 5y ago

Even applying better PNG compression reduces them to less than a third of the size. Beyond that you can consider if the full resolution and quality is actually critical to the article.

bmn__ 5y ago
Applying a bare amount of image optimisation: original 3_389_491 B pngout 2_739_324 B quantised 256 colours+pngout 636_135 B webp lossless 2_210_112 B webp default settings (lossy) 210_452 B

Spivak 5y ago

This kind of advice will never work because it requires people to remember to do it. The right approach is "whatever SSG you use add some code to generate different size images and then use srcset."

conaclos 5y ago
Another solution could be to test the website with different bandwidths. Modern browser have dedicated tools for that.

nimbius 5y ago

the guy just installed every package for arch. im...not entirely sure they comprehend the concept of bloat...

perihelions 5y ago

This page is an advertisement for uMatrix. I am seeing a perfectly readable, very elegant webpage in 37 kB of total network transfer. (It really is nice: the syntax highlighting is tasteful). Permitting: 1p CSS; denying: everything else, including fonts (in uBlock).

theandrewbailey 5y ago

It seems that the site has changed. I'm loading less than 600k for this page (scripts, images, fonts... everything).

conaclos 5y ago
Yep: every image is now in webp. I am glad that my comment improved this website :)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]