2 ms·
> 1) Put your assets on the same domain. I already do that. > 2) Why on Earth do you need megabytes of images? Because I don't want my website to look like H
by FooBarWidget 12y ago
> 1) Put your assets on the same domain.
I already do that.
> 2) Why on Earth do you need megabytes of images?
Because I don't want my website to look like Hacker News? It's great that Hacker News loads fast, but it's not exactly aesthetically pleasing.
And ever heard of retina displays? Having too low resolution images makes things blurry and ugly.
> Really? WTF? Just because you took the picture with a gigapixel camera doesn't mean you need to serve every pixel.
Okay, let's just limit it to 1200 pixels wide. That should look okay on a laptop, on a mobile device and on big monitor screens. If the image is 600 pixels high... that's a 2 MB uncompressed image right there. Compressed, maybe it's 500 KB. Show a few of them and voila, a few MB over the wire.
Making it less than 1200 pixels wide makes it look blurry on laptops and big monitor screens.
> 3) Minimize the Javascript
Dude, the Javascript I'm using is only 50 KB. That's a drop in the bucket compared to all the images.
You've been smug with your response, but you haven't given a single helpful tip. You're just assuming that anybody who doesn't succeed at the goal must be wrong and stupid.
- bsder 12y agoSmug? No, I simply stated based upon what I see every day. > Show a few of them and voila, a few MB over the wire. Show a few 1200x600 images?!?!? What are you doing? Dude, someone with a normal screen (1920x1080) cant even view 4 of those. They can't even view more than one without clipping. If you want to scroll to them, then loading a lower-resolution version and then swapping in the higher resolution version is the right solution. In addition, almost every mobile browser I have seen would force a reload every single time I swap to your page. They simply will not cache that much image data persistently. You magically are smart enough to put the assets on the same domain, minimize your javascript, and yet are shipping around a number of pixels that is bigger than the average screen size. o_O!? I'm beginning to think you're just trolling me.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> Show a few 1200x600 images?!?!? What are you doing? Dude, someone with a normal screen (1920x1080) cant even view 4 of those. QHD -- which will show four of those simultaneously -- isn't that uncommon on tablets (and even some smartphones, like the Note 4.)
- bsder 12y agoAnd if I'm on a smartphone I don't want you transmitting megabytes of images, thanks. I am reminded of all of these blog articles that start with one full screen picture that I have to scroll down to get to the first sentence. Generally, I just close the page when I see that because it indicates someone more interested in plastering my eyeballs than in giving me content.
- FooBarWidget 12y agoNot everybody thinks that way. Lots of readers prefer to see the full screen picture. To me, it's more aesthetic and invites me to read on.