Slashdot Mirror
Average Web Page Approaches 1MB
MrSeb writes "According to new research from HTTP Archive, which regularly scans the internet's most popular destinations, the average size of a single web page is now 965 kilobytes, up more than 30% from last year's average of 702KB. This rapid growth is fairly normal for the internet — the average web page was 14KB in 1995, 93KB by 2003, and 300KB in 2008 — but by burrowing a little deeper into HTTP Archive's recent data, we can discern some interesting trends. Between 2010 and 2011, the average amount of Flash content downloaded stayed exactly the same — 90KB — but JavaScript experienced massive growth from 113KB to 172KB. The amount of HTML, CSS, and images on websites also showed a significant increase year over year. There is absolutely no doubt that these trends are attributable to the death throes of Flash and emergence of HTML5 and its open web cohorts." If you have a personal home page, how big is it?
It's Huge baby!
That's rather personal.
It's a good thing phone carriers don't limit your data consumption....
oh wait..
With the growth of Javascript libraries like JQuery for more UI features, more images, I can see it reaching that high.
Meanwhile, web developers don't care because more and more people are getting faster and faster broadband speeds. So as long as the page-load metric works OK on their rig or perhaps what the envision most of their viewers have... they think it's all OK.
Average information content - does a page view give me more insight as a user now than it did 10 years ago?
Horse hockey! Don't waste our time posting stuff like this.
Around 30kb...
And how much of it is ads?
and the 3G users, and the satellite users, and everyone else that has a low-bandwidth and/or high cost per byte connection.
My parents can't get DSL or cable. They're stuck with 22k dial-up, and use AdBlock Plus, NoFlash, and Propel accelerator with compression set to the point where you can barely recognize photos, and it still takes 2 minutes for a reasonably normal page (CNN, MSNBC) to load, much less anything with a ton of Javascript or Flash.
Can't websites automatically detect connection speed the first time a client visits, and store a cookie so that us slow people get a nice, simple website?
Oh, and Propel, please move to JPEG2000 and XZ compression. Some people need every byte they can get.
It's not the size of the home page, it's the motion of the .GIF
And.... when running AdBlock Plus, this figure goes down to 100kB. I run AdBlock mostly for the massive speed increase that comes with it.
My fully featured CMS that used jQuery, jQuery UI, and a lot of heavy library takes 140kb. Learn to optimize people!!
I have a homepage, and it's only 4.92Kb. Granted it is the "It Works!" page for CentOS which has all of the other text and icons and such but who needs more than that? Do people really have personalized home pages now that Facebook came about (other than some hobbyists or professionals who run a side business)?
I wonder what the average "Facebook" homepage size is... since that is what most people will be seeing regularly.
- Toast
I think eBay lead the curve on this one. I complained bitterly to them about how long it took their bloated pages to load when I was still on dialup. Nobody cares.
I suppose the telecoms do. This increases the liklihood of blowing through your monthly bandwidth cap without even watching videos.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
According to pingdom, my home page is 304K, after minification.
--Steve
If the bulk of the increase is from javascript wouldn't turning on compression on the web server solve the problem? They're text files, they compress down massively.
And Less Content. .
I remeber the days when a site would include an 10 paragraph article on one page - Not 10 pages with a paragraph on each.
. .
... reimplementing jQuery (which is 31K, btw) badly in uncacheable custom ways without being able to draw on the years of expertise of the developers of jQuery would be a great alternative.
HAND.
This only matters if people go to the first page, and never go to any additional ones.
For most websites these days, you'll take the initial hit from javascript and the 'branding' images when you first get to the site ... but the changing content per page is much lower.
If websites are using standard javascript libraries being served by Google's CDN, then it's possible that someone visiting your page already has jquery, mootools or similar cached and doesn't need to load yet another copy.
I also didn't see if they had any comparison between transferred size vs. used size. (eg, javascript that's sent compressed) ... and as this is from an new archive ... does anyone know if Archive.org could analyze their holdings to see what the longer term trends are?
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
I remember when downloading even 1MB would take over 24 hours when using a 300 baud modem on a Commodore 64 back in 1982.
If they have cell reception then how about http://www.virginmobileusa.com/mobile-broadband/
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
My home page remains where it has been since 1993 at the Calgary Unix Users Group: http://www.cuug.ab.ca/branderr ...clocks in at 9.2K, plus a 15K GIF and a 9.1K JPG (if you "turn on images" in your browser - remember when it was a realistic option not to?)
I have held the line, while Viewing With Alarm (VWA) the growth of web pages for the entire 18 years since. I wrote Bob Metcalfe when he had a column at InfoWorld 15 years back, and he was Viewing With Alarm the exponential growth in Internet traffic and predicting the "collapse of the Internet" (had to eat those words - literally) because of it. My letter pointed out that his column constituted 2K of text - that was all the generated content that was bringing in the readers, (unless you count the 10K gif of Bob Metcalfe, and I don't), and the page had an additional 100K of framing and advertising-related image GIFs. His reply was somewhat defensive.
This last year, I had occasion to travel on the Queen Mary 2, where all internet is via satellite at a minimum of 34 cents per minute with their bulk plan. How quickly I grew to resent the giant Flash blobs that would be automatically downloaded with every page of a newspaper so I wouldn't miss the animated ads for the latest in car buys. At QM2 speeds, I'd have to wait about two minutes before I even had an "X" mark to click on to dismiss the ad. I was rather quickly cured of almost any interest in the Internet content at ALL, I did my E-mail, checked the google news headlines (fewest high-byte ads), and logged off.
My point: 90% of mail is spam. So are 90% of web page bytes. We just don't call it spam. We call it "the whole outside frame around the news page that we try not to see, but keeps jumping around into our field of view".
How much is cached? Yeah, initial page load sucks terribly, but how much has to be loaded on subsequent page requests?
How many copies of jQuery and etc. do people have cached on their machines?
It almost feels like we need dependency managers for browsers! I mean, I know there is the Google hosted stuff and other projects urge you to use their hosted version and fallback on a local copy.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
There is absolutely no doubt that these trends are attributable to the death throes of Flash and emergence of HTML5 and its open web cohorts.
No, it's not about HTML 5. A lot of it is about bloated content management systems and templates.
I was looking at a Wall Street Journal page recently, and I brought it into an HTML editor so I could eliminate all non-story content. The story required an HTML page with only 72 lines. The original page was over 4000 lines. It contained a vast amount of hidden content, including the entire registration system for buying a subscription. All that junk appears on every page.. Inline, not in an included file.
On top of that, there are content management systems which create a custom CSS page for each content page. So there's no useful caching in the browser.
Remember those people who said CSS was going to make web pages shorter? They were wrong. Look at Slashdot - bloated, slow pages that don't do much, yet consume CPU time when idle.
CSS is for prima donnas and Flash is for artistes. PHP is for chatterboxes and Perl is for psychics. Javascript is for the clinically insane, and Ruby is for hipsters. Drupal is for geeks and Ajax is for nerds.
I'll stick to plain-jane HTML, thanks.
There is absolutely no doubt that these trends are attributable to the death throes of Flash and emergence of HTML5 and its open web cohorts.
That's still too much flash for me
Sent from my iPhone
Ironically posted on a website that is itself a bloated pig.
10 years ago online video was virtually nonexistent, and where it did exist it was never larger than 320x240.
And now it is ubiquitous, HD and largely devoted to pointless things that would be skimmed over and disregarded in a fraction of the load time if left to text and still images.
My personal site's home page? Fairly large, 18k of which 11k is images. I mean, it's a home page not an image gallery or something like that where you expect a lot of large content.
I've seen some of those sites with large pages, and mostly I hate visiting them. The loading makes them feel like I'm wading through molasses, and the amount of stuff they're loading and the complexity of the scripts means more and more glitches and things that break when the network isn't perfect or they didn't expect the exact combination of things I've got at the moment. The pages come across as not being able to stay out of their own way, and more and more often they actually get in the way of my seeing what I came to the page for. There's merchants I've actually walked away from even though they had the product I wanted and had the best price on it simply because I couldn't get their pages to work well enough to get to the product page let alone order it. And I'm a techie who knows how to tweak the browser to make pages work when they don't want to, I shudder to think what it's like for someone who isn't a techie and is afraid to touch the security settings.
my site's a pyjamas application. it is therefore 1,000 lines of python.... or, when compiled (and therefore including the pyjs runtime which does stuff like dict, list, exceptions etc. all emulated in javascript, as well as including the library of widgets that are used on the page) it's 1.3mb of really obtuse but functionally correct javascript.
It remains the size of one of those animated "under construction" gifs.
Word game?
I've been able to run both CPU and GPU based CFD and 3D visualisation on my laptop without any problems, yet some flash games which are just doing 2D animation will roast a 2.7 GHz CPU to the point that the kernel decides to call it a day and shut down the whole system.
Unbelievably, these flash games aren't doing anything more complex than playing a retro 2D platform game. I'm guessing that this is due to the way in which all the separate texturemaps/pixelmaps are treated as generic webpage images rather than as a single DOOM style WAD file.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
http://www.the5k.org/
It seemed so long ago. Didn't /. have an entry as well?
This sig contains repetition and redundancy.
It's not completely done yet, but I doubt it will go over 200K when it is done.
But I would venture to guess that the average person also uses wysiwig editors and/or templates, which tend to be horribly bloated from the getgo. Most templates I've experimented with can be easily reduced up to 60% of their original size while delivering the exact same look, feel and functionality, and a significant amount of the HTML code that's spawned from the aforementioned methods is entirely unnecessary.
Wonder if i can cut 1k somewhere to make it 66.6k just for fun.
Its a personal site, with just a picture of me, and lots of text. Runs Drupal 7 theme based on Stark.
It's only huge if you load all the huge stuff you don't need to be loading.
The abuse of __VIEWSTATE in certain pages makes the actual viewstate bigger that the site itself, per click, growing and growing. Which basically must count for something. I have always wondered how Microsoft hould have thought this out, or maybe the lack of education of its "developers".
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
Mine's above average - nearly 11 inches!
My personal web site's home page is 2KB. It's HTML5, no CSS, no JS. My research group site has a bit of all three plus a handful of images and comes in at 125KB. Big website I sysadmin weighs in at 1.1MB. A nice variety there. I think my personal site claims the crown as the fastest loading and quickest to render.
My main site is 492KB for the front page and all of it's content, including images. Any loads other than the first are around 42KB due to browser based caching.
Bigger web pages and heavier use of scripts are partly to blame for memory leaks that web browsers suffer. Back in 2001 when IE6 was still new it could happily run with just 64MB RAM. Now netbooks struggle with 16 times that much RAM. In the future we will be complaining that Firefox 258 will be using 2PB of ram for just five tabs.
Some sites use Javascript to display what is semi-static data that should be assembled on the server side before transmitting to the user. For example, a news site where the stories are loaded by Javascript.
Some sites even have pages that are entirely blank if Javascript is turned off. It seems that some of these "web programmers" don't even know how to dynamically build a page with server-side scripting instead of Javascript.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Well I just checked, and my homepage is still 123 bytes. Is this like the reverse of overcompensating?
Home page of my personal web space is well under 1k. "This space intentionally left blank."
"There is absolutely no doubt that these trends are attributable to the death throes of Flash and emergence of HTML5 and its open web cohorts."
To quote the internet: "lolwut?"
You think it might be (more realistically) that many more people are using javascript libraries like jquery (~90kb) which increase their overall pagesize bloat? Simply put, a flash menu is a flash menu, and it's about the same size whether you've got a lot of fancy stuff flying around or you're going with the most plain menu possible. If you're having to include a stack of javascript animation libraries and plugins to keep your site "open" (whatever that means) then things get bulky in a hurry.
To attribute a huge increase in raw javascript size as a good thing is blindingly stupid. If anything it's a bad thing because people aren't using the right tools for the job, and trying to force something that's half implemented and not fully defined into a place that is already occupied by the much leaner, faster and more mature flash. I call BS on any smug "open" enthusiast who crows about the downfall of flash until somebody shows me that they can build a feature for feature clone of something like farmville (chosen because it's so widely used) with less time, expense and developer expertise than flash and equivalent cross platform performance.
Use the tool that's right for the job. To assume when you wield a hammer that everything is a nail is retarded.
and one 27864 byte image. Google also understands the importance of this.
Damned FrontPage
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
jQuery + jQuery UI (minified) is a lot smaller than the custom shit you're probably thinking about implementing.
(Yes, in an ideal world all the stuff that makes jQuery/jQuery-UI/whatever an attractive proposition would be folded into a standard, but so far it ain't happenin')
HAND.
... I have not upgraded my home page since 1999. Will its size have stayed the same?
of the code doesn't matter....it's how you use it!
2753 bytes
The "home" page at our home web server is 9.5kB, including some Javascript, but it will load about 80kB of Logos from various FOSS sites (Gimp, Scribus, Inkscape, SciLab, etc.). Most of the index pages in different areas are also rather less than 10kB in size, but some of them link to pages containing albums of photos and videos. The entire site contains 15.6 GB of files which can be served up, mostly in these albums.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
From a usability perspective:
In short: You fail web page design, so who the fuck cares if your page is 10K?
HAND.
Opera Nobile, featured on plenty of mobile devices, where pages arrive pre-chewed to fit one's own display limits (and thus saving on precious and often expensive mobile-data bandwith). Times, when webpages' code was counted in less than couple of hundreds kB are now swollen over an almyghty MB, due to all flash bang, larger-image pop-up overlay, and hidden menus awaiting to be rolled out... I can easily see why Opera Mini is so ultra-popular with the majority of regular cell-phone users.
Well, stuff like jQuery/Dojo/etc libraries shouldn't be loading every time you view a page.
The first view, your browser will need to load all the associated CSS, HTML, etc.
After that, included files should hopefully be cached, and only page content need be loaded.
Also, with JS libraries and AJAX, one should be able to build pages that load the overall template once, but don't require pulling large HTML files for updates (rather just pull content with AJAX).
From 1995 to 2003, 26.7% annual gowth (take the eighth root of (93/14) and then subtract 1). From 2003 to 2008, 26.4%. From 2008 to 2010, 53.0%. Last year's growth was 37.5%. All percentages rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent.
What's worse is that the "payload" of text is less and less interesting. Bandwidth isn't the problem. I have more than enough bandwidth for these pages. When they hit the browser, they take forever just to render. There are a handful of web sites I still use, Slashdot among them. Most new sites I just back right up. If your site does that on day 1, it's not worth the bother. I'm not buying a new machine just to look at your crap web site that's probably just a rehash of every Internet meme.
We're well into the "nobody comes here anymore it's too crowded" and/or "57 million web sites and nothing on" stage.
Call me old-school: 10-20 kBytes for the HTML (depending on contents) plus 2kB for the icon (wich stays the same on all pages).
Including 9366 bytes worth of images. It's been pretty steady since 1992 or so (initially hosted over ftp instead of http as my Dept didn't have an http server yet).
Riiigght... Javascript increases by about 50Kb, so it's responsible for the other several hundred Kb of increase over the last few years?
Everyone realizes that gzipped jQuery is only 31Kb, right? I'm sick of people blaming Javascript for bloat. Do you realize how much work it would be to produce several hundred Kb of it? Much less think of reasons to produce that much?
I've been a web designer for years, and where the increases in page size I've seen actually come from is just plain old images. Monitors are bigger. That means web page designs need to be bigger. That means the images that make them up need to be bigger.
Think about it: it used to be common practice to design a fixed-width website to render on an 800x600 (or even 640x480) monitor. I remember doing them 450px wide, back in the dark ages. Now I do them at 960px, or wider if the audience is likely to have higher resolution monitors. That means the images that make up the layout need to be a little more than twice as wide, if they're made equally taller that's a little more than 4 times as many pixels, just to do the same old things at the new standard resolution.
Since bandwidth is less of an issue today (for the vast majority of people, anyway) we also compress our images less, in the name of things not looking like crap. When designing a website (especially a graphics-heavy one) you also need to spend more care on the stuff around the main design, for people with maximized browsers on high-resolution screens. So not only are we making images with 4X the pixels, compressed a little less, we need to add a few more images to the mix to maintain the same level of visual excitement for people using big screens.
On websites produced by competent people HTML5, CSS, Flash and Javascript have basically fuck-all to do with the recent ballooning of bandwidth. Specific implementations of Javascript that you happen to have a grudge against have less that fuck-all to do with it. It's just a fact of life that bigger screens connected to fatter pipes will wind up with more pixels piped to them. Deal with it.
That said, my portfolio website is only 300-odd Kb on the homepage, and it's CMS-driven, includes jQuery and is pretty damn heavy on the graphics. I like to think I'm sharper than the average copy-pasting "web designer," though.
Porquoi?
Just saying . . .
All your database are belong to U.S.
Well maybe if you include all the images and the PDFs. I have a rather extensive website and if I recall, even when I backed up the entire thing, it came out to maybe 76MB, and that included all the image hosting I was doing for a different website.
The problem is the same problem we're having now with "windows" software. Bloated because it's being generated by machine rather than hand-coded. All these WYSIWYG HTML code generators that allow people to just drag and drop text and pictures and let Dreamweaver do the rest -- or worse -- those crazy websites that just build other websites (i.e blogger).
The point is: You can get away with a lot less, but nobody cares because bandwidth is fast and cheap and so is processing time. If the NY Times took 10 minutes to load, you'd better believe they would do something to optimize it.
But that's like asking modern programmers to hand-optimize their code for office applications. It's just not going to happen. MS Word loads and runs fast enough even though the code for that thing is a nightmare. Yet, for the majority of what you use Word for, the free, scaled down desk accessory "Wordpad" is more than enough.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
It's like images back in the day when everyone had dial-up, it took you a minute to download a few KB image file, now with faster internet, it takes the same amount of time, however you are now downloading a few MB image file, because as the bandwidth of the average person increased so did the resolutions and sizes of other things.
I mean did anyone download a 1080p image back in early 2000s??!? Probably not, but now everyone wants 1080p desktop backgrounds and whatnot. It is simply companies providing a better experience to their web site, as the average person advances in tech so does the web page
Well, that explains why my 400MHz WINXP laptop with 128M memory has a heart attack trying to scroll down a page of comments on Slashdot.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
The front web page I maintain for a local charity organization is just 84KB according to the Firefox Web Developer plugin which seems fairly accurate. This includes 4 html files (all hand edited), 11 images (all optimized .pngs), 1 js file and 2 style sheets.
Slashdot's homepage weighs in at 628 KB and this article was (ironically) 1032 KB when I checked.
Nevermore.
I have a processor of similar speed(2.93 GHz), and Civilization II sorta does that to me - when civ2.exe is running, Task Manager shows a lot of CPU use and the fan starts running bigtime.
mine doesn't autoshutdown, so maybe my situation isn't as bad as yours. but I still worry about damaging the equipment, and the sound competes with/adds to the sound of background music
it does have separate .jpg/.gif/.txt files for the game resources
perhaps this is happening because Civilization II works through DOS rather than being native Windows
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
40-60% of Yahoo!’s users have an empty cache experience and ~20% of all page views are done with an empty cache.
http://yuiblog.com/blog/2007/01/04/performance-research-part-2/
Don't feel too smug. Your page isn't even compressed.
Turn adblock on, that's how I'd like to see it measured. They say the amount of Flash stayed about the same, but there's a lot of non-Flash, annoyingly obtrusive ads these days that adblock takes care of. Their numbers seem to indicate that an increase in Javascript has been relevant, which could be from sites using AJAX a bit more, but a lot that the extra work is on the server's end so I still think there'd probably be quite a decrease in the average with adblock on.
I'm also curious as to whether Facebook pages played a role in these statistics, that's all a lot of people look at. People sharing pictures and whatnot.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
THEIR SCRIPTS + IMAGES etc. (ALL PARTS OF BANNER ADS ONLINE, IN OTHER WORDS)... I wonder what % THEY represent, especially currently/nowadays!
APK
P.S.=> I'd wager that a LOT of it is that size in webpages, especially nowadays... why/how?
Simple: Mainly because of the speed gains I see loading webpages by using a HOSTS file to block out adbanners...
(Alongside in-browser tools in addons, or built in blocking like Opera's URLFILTER.INI, FF's native internal list, IE9's TPL's + Restricted Zones, + software & hardware firewall block lists & using filtering DNS's too vs. threats online - to gain me back speed/bandwidth I paid for out of pocket, & for security purposes too)...
... apk
Mostly thanks to CSS3, which allows me to have a relatively nice design without the use of a dozen images.
My site consists of 6 files: 4KB HTML, 8KB for modernizr.js, 4KB CSS (2 files), 2KB for a font and 9KB for a small portrait.
"There is absolutely no doubt that these trends are attributable to the death throes of Flash and emergence of HTML5 and its open web cohorts." Excuse me, but HTML5 isn't even standard yet.
According to the web developer toolbar -> Information -> Page Size:
Documents (8 files) - 57 KB
Images (14 files) - 278 KB
Objects (2 files) - 409 KB
Scripts (4 files) - 102 KB (311 KB uncompressed)
Style Sheets (2 files) - 25 KB (124 KB uncompressed)
Total 872 KB (1179 KB uncompressed)
Things like JS libraries are more and more linked to Google's (or other) CDN which causes them to hit cache almost all the time.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2587352&cid=38465364
APK
P.S.=> I've asked this in the past before here too, never got an answer back then either However - I *think* I know why too:
I.E.-> The "profiteers" that gain by it don't want folks to know how much bandwidth AND SPEED they're BLOWING that PEOPLE PAID FOR OUT OF POCKET, especially after they pay for online bills from ISP's on adbanner loads + CPU processing times for them alone!
(LOL, "can't let THAT tidbit 'get out'" now, can we? Nope - "absolutely not")... apk
About:blank represent!
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Learn to code properly.
http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/
Test your website there.
A paltry 248.6kB for my web page.
Test my website (top site in my sig) against yours. Can you score higher than my typical average of 79%?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If two pages are otherwise close in whatever ranking algorithm is being applied, I want to visit the one that will paint in my browser window using a few TCP/IP connections and downloading as little stuff as possible. I'd also like to be able to search only for sites that serve everything from a single host.
from what i've seen, the average site, as developed by india, is about 2-3 times that large. a single javascript for the page (of several) might be about 1Mb, though. From what i've seen, it's not uncommon for a page to have more than 5Mb of non-reusable elements. You can thank outsourcing, cut-and-paste programmers, and easily themeable click-to-install frameworks for this.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
...plus a 12K JPEG of me and a 60K JPEG for the background. No Javascript or Flash, because I'm not doing anything that needs them. The site as a whole is probably around 200 megs, but most of that is photos and files to download.
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...
Thanks.
That was the criteria - 10 seconds to load on a 56k dialup connection - for my business home page. I still use that site, and it hasn't appreciably changed. Now, my information is primarily static, so that helps. I hate waiting for web pages to load when all I need is to read a couple paragraphs of content or get the link to what I need. I don't have all fucking day to waste while your flash animation loads before I can click through.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Chromium task manager shows that it is using 103,376K to show this page. Why are web browsers so inefficient? This page is ~400K in size. Why is the browser using ~250 bytes per byte of text?
Don't you think it is only natural?
Since back then the most common connections to the internet was still on dial-up? So it's only natural for webpages today to scale and actually enhances the user's experience if the technology we have now is used correctly.
But if they hadn't included that, Apple wouldn't have paid Slashdot.
Median is the measure you want.
If you use the mean, 90% of web pages could stay the exact same size, but if the other 10% go nuts and increase their size 20x, the mean will grow nearly 3x.
I hope your site isn't about maths.
this actually interests me also WHY browser (any) uses close to 100MB to display page that is less than 1 MB big? does anyone have anything like "out of 100MB 1MB is used by page, 10MB used by MS DLL 90MB used by 3D DirectX support" so i can understand why small pages i make use so much memory
...but it's purely minimalistic contact info.
So a web page today is about 10x bigger than it was in 2003. I can accept that.
But in 2003, I had a baseline 2-megabit-per-second Internet connection and could have had a 3- or 5-megabit connection for a bit more cash.
Today, 8 years later, the "normal" connection speed for my ISP is 6-megabit.
So according to my observations and their statistics, folks are expected to download 10 times the amount of stuff using just 3 times as much available bandwidth.
In other words, the web is currently more than three times slower than it was in 2003.
Hooray!
Kid-proof tablet..
Unless you drive in England.
2.7k home page, yay!
About half my regular blog readers are based in emerging markets / less developed countries. I began to notice that hittership was dropping in Africa and India. Reviewing about a thousand posts, I noticed that the more photos and "blogger apps" I put on the web page, the lower the readership in countries with low bandwidth. I've been more conscientious now about which photo resolution I post and tend to avoid videos. And a lot of the cool little blogger widgets don't seem as important when measured in seconds to open the page. http://retroworks.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-has-widget-fever.html Of course my content also sometimes sucks, and it also helps if I lay off the haiku.
Gently reply
The cuteness overload is steganographically encoding vital information needed for freedom fighters. You didn't think that was just a guy and his pet did you? That was morse code! /I am Kittening.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'd LIKE to write light pages, but I don't get to chose you know.
The customers ALWAYS want all the bells and whistles, and NEVER care about load times until it's slow on THEIR pc.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
"All cyclists making left turns, or going straight on a road with a right turn only lane, are anuses." Say what?
Just because most people have a car doesn't mean that people who use two-wheeled human-powered vehicles don't deserve the use of the road. Likewise, just because most people happen to live where broadband is available doesn't mean that people stuck behind dial-up or satellite don't deserve a responsive web site experience.
So now, as carriers start charging based on data usage, web pages continue to grow, and ads they contain as well. It was fun while it lasted.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
Bucking the trend, apparently.
My home page is 202 bytes.
The most used link points to a page that is 45 kilobytes. All data, no images, no css. There are 12 people that use it.
I believe my site design style could be considered Minimalist.
I once installed a dynamic facebook button on epSos.de. The button was downloading large JavaScript files that were bigger than the page itself.
The revenue from the ads fell and the average visitor time went down. The page became too big for the half of the audience.
It is the little extensions that make the websites bloated !
The maximum size of an optimal page with images is around 200 kb now. It was around 100 kb not so long ago. The improved rendering techniques of the browsers and the broadband connections made the Internet a lot more fun to create.
If someone passes you on the right here in Springfield, they're the assholes, because they're passing you on the shoulder (and it's way too common, I've even seen cops do it). And in town? I'm not going to be in the right lane when I need to turn left five blocks down the road, I'd never get over in time.
Fujisawa Sensei seems like an idiot with an attitude. Dumbest sig I've seen in a long time.
Free Martian Whores!
Really, this just seems to show me that JS is bloated and no one is working on a good standard way to make it better. For example a binary JS and binary SVG (canvas). It's bloated because you're downloading 'working files' most of the time rather than publish ready content!
It is mostly a table of contents. But it does load instantaneously.
"Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santayana
9.9K @ http://bigsong.com/
Videos are hugely helpful for learning DIY stuff on the web. I can't fathom the number of times videos on the web have helped me learn how to do something I would normally not be comfortable doing.
Just today, I took apart the glovebox in my car because I watched someone do it on Youtube and realized that it wasn't as difficult as I thought it would be.
In the beginning, there was null.
But that still doesn't change the fact that if someone's passing you on the right in England, that they're not an asshole for doing so.