5 ms·

I managed under 1.5KB for a page that has an actual function, not just a test: http://www.captiveportal.co.uk http://www.captiveportal.co.uk And yes, that’s s

I managed under 1.5KB for a page that has an actual function, not just a test: http://www.captiveportal.co.uk http://www.captiveportal.co.uk And yes, that’s supposed to be a non-https link. I think the entire site, including favicon, might be under 5KB. You can check here: https://github.com/josharcheruk/CaptivePortal https://github.com/josharcheruk/CaptivePortal

cocoflunchy 4y ago
Well, the function is not in the content so your website could even be completely empty. I would say https://cv.tdarb.org/ https://cv.tdarb.org/ has more function.
- PuffinBlue 4y ago
  Fair critique.
- cafeinux 4y ago
  Interestingly, I surprised myself browsing the website you posted and others, clicking on every link, ready each new page before going back to finish reading the page I was coming from, jumping from link to link just as I remember doing 20 years ago. That is something I don't do anymore. Sure, I sometimes click on some links when I'm reading something, but I usually do it with a middle click (opens the link in a new tab) and continue reading the first article before closing it and seeing the new tab. And at this point I usually lost interest in the content I opened a few minutes before and just close the tab without reading. I was just wondering why I usually do this and why I didn't this time, and I realise that the reasons I open links in new tabs and don't consume them directly are : - opening it in a second tab lets it enough time to load completely, since everything is so bloated; - a website messing with your tab history or redirecting you 6 times before allowing you to get the content you were waiting for means that going back to my previous article will be a pain in the ass, and I'd rather play with two tabs rather than quintuple-click that back button just to find my previous article. Anyway, that didn't happen here, because I subconsciously knew that every link would load before I could even think of it, and that none would make coming back one step a pain in the ass, and that was refreshing and maybe even made me nostalgic. But more than anything else, it allowed me to read with more focus than I remember having the last few years. So yeah, I love that "bare ones" design. (PS: I also realise my comment is so long it could have been it's own blog post. Maybe I should start one...)
pxx 4y ago
Were you aware of http://neverssl.com http://neverssl.com before making this? Though I guess your page is slightly smaller (687 bytes vs 1900 bytes compressed). http://captive.apple.com http://captive.apple.com is even smaller though.
- PuffinBlue 4y ago
  I didn’t know about neverssl.com. I think I would have still made captiveportal.co.uk even if I did because it was fun :-)
PostOnce 4y ago
https://www.captiveportal.co.uk https://www.captiveportal.co.uk works and doesnt redirect to a non-https link, at this point its hard for normal users to go to an http:// http:// link without their browser overriding them neverssl.com solves this by redirecting to a random subdomain (for some reason that isnt clear to me near midnight) a .co.uk equivalent is a great idea though, if it can be made accessible to users with hostile browsers
- oynqr 4y ago
  Most browser still don't have force https enabled by default, so without HSTS there is nothing preventing plain http.
  - sitzkrieg 4y ago
    both firefox and chrome do for me, trying https first even when i type http:// http://. particularly if https was ever used for a domain in past which drives me nuts for local network domains. the only way i make them stop is to clear history
- PuffinBlue 4y ago
  I’ll add it to the to do list. The current hosting won’t be around after next year so it’s getting moved in about 6 months to where I have some more control and I can probably implement changes needed.
- ehPReth 4y ago
  SSL/TLS/https (the padlock symbol) prevents this. This site will never use those technologies. yet it has https? strange haha
  - PuffinBlue 4y ago
    The site is hosted in Fastmail - I think they must have enabled https or perhaps I missed that it was active when I put the site in there.
nicbou 4y ago
example.com also works for that
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Aissen 4y ago
Is it really needed when browser (and linux distros!) have their own captive portal detection page ? (e.g http://detectportal.firefox.com/ http://detectportal.firefox.com/ or http://connectivity-check.ubuntu.com http://connectivity-check.ubuntu.com)
- wongarsu 4y ago
  On desktop the automatic detection is pretty reliable. On mobile I find myself opening http://example.com http://example.com with some regularity (the most common edge case is if a network with captive portal is configured to auto-connect, and I don't have a browser open).

cocoflunchy 4y ago

Well, the function is not in the content so your website could even be completely empty. I would say https://cv.tdarb.org/ https://cv.tdarb.org/ has more function.

PuffinBlue 4y ago
Fair critique.
cafeinux 4y ago
Interestingly, I surprised myself browsing the website you posted and others, clicking on every link, ready each new page before going back to finish reading the page I was coming from, jumping from link to link just as I remember doing 20 years ago. That is something I don't do anymore. Sure, I sometimes click on some links when I'm reading something, but I usually do it with a middle click (opens the link in a new tab) and continue reading the first article before closing it and seeing the new tab. And at this point I usually lost interest in the content I opened a few minutes before and just close the tab without reading. I was just wondering why I usually do this and why I didn't this time, and I realise that the reasons I open links in new tabs and don't consume them directly are : - opening it in a second tab lets it enough time to load completely, since everything is so bloated; - a website messing with your tab history or redirecting you 6 times before allowing you to get the content you were waiting for means that going back to my previous article will be a pain in the ass, and I'd rather play with two tabs rather than quintuple-click that back button just to find my previous article. Anyway, that didn't happen here, because I subconsciously knew that every link would load before I could even think of it, and that none would make coming back one step a pain in the ass, and that was refreshing and maybe even made me nostalgic. But more than anything else, it allowed me to read with more focus than I remember having the last few years. So yeah, I love that "bare ones" design. (PS: I also realise my comment is so long it could have been it's own blog post. Maybe I should start one...)

pxx 4y ago

Were you aware of http://neverssl.com http://neverssl.com before making this? Though I guess your page is slightly smaller (687 bytes vs 1900 bytes compressed). http://captive.apple.com http://captive.apple.com is even smaller though.

PuffinBlue 4y ago
I didn’t know about neverssl.com. I think I would have still made captiveportal.co.uk even if I did because it was fun :-)

PostOnce 4y ago

https://www.captiveportal.co.uk https://www.captiveportal.co.uk works and doesnt redirect to a non-https link, at this point its hard for normal users to go to an http:// http:// link without their browser overriding them neverssl.com solves this by redirecting to a random subdomain (for some reason that isnt clear to me near midnight) a .co.uk equivalent is a great idea though, if it can be made accessible to users with hostile browsers

oynqr 4y ago
Most browser still don't have force https enabled by default, so without HSTS there is nothing preventing plain http.
- sitzkrieg 4y ago
  both firefox and chrome do for me, trying https first even when i type http:// http://. particularly if https was ever used for a domain in past which drives me nuts for local network domains. the only way i make them stop is to clear history
PuffinBlue 4y ago
I’ll add it to the to do list. The current hosting won’t be around after next year so it’s getting moved in about 6 months to where I have some more control and I can probably implement changes needed.
ehPReth 4y ago
SSL/TLS/https (the padlock symbol) prevents this. This site will never use those technologies. yet it has https? strange haha
- PuffinBlue 4y ago
  The site is hosted in Fastmail - I think they must have enabled https or perhaps I missed that it was active when I put the site in there.

nicbou 4y ago

example.com also works for that

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Aissen 4y ago

Is it really needed when browser (and linux distros!) have their own captive portal detection page ? (e.g http://detectportal.firefox.com/ http://detectportal.firefox.com/ or http://connectivity-check.ubuntu.com http://connectivity-check.ubuntu.com)

wongarsu 4y ago
On desktop the automatic detection is pretty reliable. On mobile I find myself opening http://example.com http://example.com with some regularity (the most common edge case is if a network with captive portal is configured to auto-connect, and I don't have a browser open).