So… in his particular implementation, the medium fidelity version is the full fidelity version minus about 22KB (uncompressed) of styles and JavaScript. On the

So… in his particular implementation, the medium fidelity version is the full fidelity version minus about 22KB (uncompressed) of styles and JavaScript. On the wire, the whole HTML document (including inline CSS and JS) is roughly 6.9KB medium and 13.2KB high. As it happens, the document is not minified. With minification and with a much lighter and less needlessly-indirect implementation of the JS parts, high would be about 9.7KB on the wire, compared to about 6.6KB for medium. And I haven’t tried stripping unused styles, which is the obvious thing to do when it’s all inline and functionally non-interactive; from a quick skim, I expect approaching half of the styles to be unused. At these levels, the difference between medium and high seems fairly silly. Then there’s low, which shaves off about half a kilobyte more, practically only differing in removing the smidgeon of CSS and turning images into text links to the images, which is a class of functionality that genuinely bandwidth-constrained users will want to do themselves in a browser extension, since practically nobody is going to do it (least of all the heavy ones). All up, I say it’s a philosophical statement only, not something of any practical value. The only developers that are going to produce this kind of thing are the developers whose sites won’t really benefit from doing it.