3 ms·
The latter is an argument against using any asset external to the page, CSS, images, anything. Unless you are looking at a network timeline in your mobile brows
by serve_yay 12y ago
The latter is an argument against using any asset external to the page, CSS, images, anything. Unless you are looking at a network timeline in your mobile browser you don't really know what is taking so long to load.
- dllthomas 12y agoA lot of assets don't get substantially in the way of most of the page's functionality when they are slow to load.
- serve_yay 12y agoThe whole starting point of this discussion was limited 3G bandwidth. Anything going through that pipe is necessarily holding up other stuff from loading. Potentially important other stuff.
- dllthomas 12y agoI'll grant that this makes it an argument against those things. I don't see that it's an equally strong argument. In any case, you have to weigh the costs and benefits.
- scrollaway 12y agoIt's not an argument against using any of those assets. It's an argument against depending on them for your website to be usable. And that argument does apply to css and images. Obviously this does not apply to actual web apps but more to article-oriented HTML. And yes, I do look at network timelines (I tether, sue me). The amount of sites that will hang until jquery is done loading because displaying their measly 50 lines of text requires a fancy animation they were too lazy to implement in css is pathetic.