Slashdot Mirror
Average Web Page Size Triples Since 2003
Andy King writes "Within the last five years, the size of the average web page has more than tripled, and the number of external objects has nearly doubled. While broadband users have experienced somewhat faster response times, narrowband users have been left behind." The article breaks down a number of changes besides just page size, including image types and video duration.
... let's note how they've grown in screen size, too! I mean, back in the day, it used to be good enough to have a monitor that could display 640x480. Now, if you're using a 14" CRT, you're totally out of luck when viewing the intarwebs!
Ahem... honestly, I agree that "narrowband users have been left behind," but so have those with smaller monitors, older operating systems, and the like. Sometimes upgrading the hardware/software is just a necessity at some point. If you can't, chances are there's a library nearby that has some newer hardware that might work.
Would it be better if we went back to having a high content/low content index page so the user could pick which one they wanted? Maybe... but I don't think it's necessary, and it usually involves a lot more work.
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
How many web pages had embedded video as a matter of course in 2003?
It seems to me that embedded video alone could account for at least half of this increase.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Internet access gets faster -> Web sites get bigger ...
Hard drives get bigger -> Applications use more space
Media storage increases -> Home videos get larger and quality improves
CPUs get faster -> Windows programmers add "features" and chow down on cycles
Fish bowls get larger -> Goldfish grow
Some good, some bad, some ugly. But not shocking.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I wish more sites thought about narrowband users not because I myself am stuck with narrowband, but because I find that broadband-focused sites hide the pure content you want in a maze of gimmicks like Flash and needlessly dynamic HTML. Sure, in some areas (certain web applications), such features make the experience more efficient, but most of the time it is fluff.
Everything still runs pretty fast, certainly much faster than those few occasions when I need graphics or https: and run Firefox. The difference is noticable on all machines, and greatest (~2x) on the slower ones.
Sometimes formatting gets messed up, but the main content is still in text and still very readable.
Ugh, I hate it when people describe dial-up as "narrowband" in an attempt to sound more technical. The term "broadband" is used to describe the signal encoding, not bandwidth. Therefore the converse of "broadband is "baseband," not narrowband. The opposite of narrowband is "wideband", and refers to something else. Um, k? Glad we have that all cleared up.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Dynamic HTML generally doesn't take up much more bandwidth than normal HTML - a couple of extra bytes for a few CSS rules and a few lines of javascript. It makes pages feel slow and clunky because it makes the browser work harder, not because its straining your bandwidth.
Flash too, despite the bad rep it gets here can (I stress, can be fairly small in size.
The reason these things feel clunky isn't because they're big and slow, it's because they're, well, clunky.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Advertising on the web has tripled over the last five years? It's most definitely what's clogging the pipes...er, tubes.
What?
I don't know what all you other guys are browsing. I never really found legit sites that rather taistful about their adds. I have seen less adds/webpage from 2003-2008 not more. I also don't freak out everytime I see an add either. Most people who make a living of add supported websites normally are not multi-millionares. They may make an average living with their site and adds are the primary revenue and these people work full time to keep the site up to date.
Usually when sites go Add Crazy they do not last long because there is to much adds and prevents repeat visits, so they go away because they cannot make proper money from it.
Also back in the early 2000's flash wasn't used for most of the adds but animated GIFs and Flash is much more efficent then animated GIFs. So you are actually saving bandwith.
Think of the alternatives to adds. Having to Pay for directly out of own pocket for access to a web site. Web sites collecting information about you and selling them to spammers. Web sites that are a labor of love and will get updated every year if you are luckly and could go down any day.
Like it or not Web Banner Adds are actually the best happy medium that we have come up with that keep most websites running. Some websites such as HomeStarrunner.com make their mony selling swag but that may not be as profitable for other sites.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.