5 ms·
It's too slow. It takes at least five seconds to load the next picture after you answer. You should probably just preload all the pictures client-side. I wasn't
by geor9e 8mo ago
It's too slow. It takes at least five seconds to load the next picture after you answer. You should probably just preload all the pictures client-side. I wasn't able to get through it.
- KPGv2 8mo agoIt's a 25-year old website and most people were on slow dial-up connection. No one would've stuck around for 17 images to be pre-loaded.
- viraptor 8mo agoThat's not what preload is for. You don't wait for the extra images on the first page. You start loading them after the page is complete, so that the next page loads faster.
- butlike 8mo agoDial up was 4 (four) kbps. Conceptually preloading wasn't possible I don't think
- viraptor 8mo agoVery early, sure. But the later common speeds that most people experienced were between 14 and 56kbps. Preloading was definitely possible even with just image tag ordering.
- KPGv2 8mo agoI'm not sure there was a technical way to preload back then. I wasn't working in web dev in the early 00s, but I had done some informally. I just don't think preloading was a thing. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure AJAX does not predate this website, SPAs were impossible, etc. I suppose you might do something with IFRAMEs, but you likely wouldn't be able to fetch those /after/ the main page. Preloading would be simul-loading and lag the hell out of your main window. The way to instruct a browser to load back then was to wait for the user to actually click to fetch, and that would navigate away from the current page.
- missingdays 8mo agoSo people waited for 20 seconds to load each page?
- codingdave 8mo agoYes. The tolerance for slow-loading pages has shrunk dramatically since the early days of the web. Admittedly, 20 seconds was pushing it and people tried to reduce image sizes and such things to make it faster. But I recall in the late 90s, when I was selling CMS software to IBM, they had a rule that all pages needed to load within 3 seconds, and that was considered fast in those days.
- butlike 8mo agoI waited 4 hours to watch the 3min Phantom Menace trailer when it dropped.
- keithluu 8mo agoRight? I was thinking how come it takes such a simple site to load. Then I saw the footer, it's 25 years old.
- badgersnake 8mo agoBeing on the Hacker News front page probably has something to do with that.
- butlike 8mo agoJust wait until you get to scoring...