Our developers managed to run around 750MB per website open once.
They have put in ticket with ops that the server is slow and could we look at it. So we looked. Every single video on a page with long video list pre-loaded a part of it. The single reason the site didn't ran like shit for them is coz office had direct fiber to out datacenter few blocks away.
We really shouldn't allow web developers more than 128kbit of connection speed, anything more and they just make nonsense out of it.
PSA for those who aren’t aware: Chromium/Firefox-based browsers have a Network tab in the developer tools where you can dial down your bandwidth to simulate a slower 3G or 4G connection.
Combined with CPU throttling, it's a decent sanity check to see how well your site will perform on more modest setups.
Peanuts! My wife’s workplace has an internal photo gallery page. If your device can cope with it and you wait long enough, it’ll load about 14GB of images (so far). In practice, it will crawl along badly and eventually just crash your browser (or more), especially if you’re on a phone.
The single-line change of adding loading=lazy to the elements wouldn’t fix everything, but it would make the page at least basically usable.
If you want to see context aware pre-fetching done right go to mcmaster.com ...
There are good reasons to have a small cheap development staging server, as the rate-limited connection implicitly trains people what not to include. =3
I used the text web (https://text.npr.org and the like) thru Lyx. Also, Usenet, Gopher, Gemini, some 16 KBPS opus streams, everything under 2.7 KBPS when my phone data plan was throttled and I was using it in tethering mode. Tons of sites did work, but Gopher://magical.fish ran really fast.
Bitlbee saved (and still saves) my ass with tons of the protocols available via IRC using nearly nil data to connect. Also you can connect with any IRC client since early 90's.
Not just web developers. Electron lovers should be trottled with 2GB of RAM machines and some older Celeron/Core Duo machine with a GL 2.1 compatible video card. It it desktop 'app' smooth on that machine, your project it's ready.
You don't even need video for this: I once worked for a company that put a carousel with everything in the product line, and every element was just pointing to the high resolution photography assets: The one that maybe would be useful for full page print media ads. 6000x4000 pngs. It worked fine in the office, they said. Add another nice background that size, a few more to have on the sides as you scroll down...
I was asked to look at the site when it was already live, and some VP of the parent company decided to visit the site from their phone at home.
Should also give designers periodically small displays with low maximum contrast, and have them actually try to achieve everyday tasks with the UX they have designed.
> Our developers managed to run around 750MB per website open once.
This breaks my brain..."run around 750MB" "per website" "open once".
Do you mean your company had several websites (as in unique websites), and each had 750MB? Or the transferred data volume of each was 750MB? Or just the first page? Or the source code?
And do you mean "open once", as in "once upon a time", or if you open the website one time? Or did your developers open and shut websites, and the open ones had 750MB? Or one time when you entered your developer's office space, you saw they had opened several websites on their computers, random ones, and by coincidence you saw the network tabs and each was 750MB data transferred?
375 comments
They have put in ticket with ops that the server is slow and could we look at it. So we looked. Every single video on a page with long video list pre-loaded a part of it. The single reason the site didn't ran like shit for them is coz office had direct fiber to out datacenter few blocks away.
We really shouldn't allow web developers more than 128kbit of connection speed, anything more and they just make nonsense out of it.
Combined with CPU throttling, it's a decent sanity check to see how well your site will perform on more modest setups.
The single-line change of adding loading=lazy to the![]()
elements wouldn’t fix everything, but it would make the page at least basically usable.
> We really shouldn't allow web developers more than 128kbit
Marketing dept. too. They're the primary culprits in all the tracking scripts.
There are good reasons to have a small cheap development staging server, as the rate-limited connection implicitly trains people what not to include. =3
Bitlbee saved (and still saves) my ass with tons of the protocols available via IRC using nearly nil data to connect. Also you can connect with any IRC client since early 90's.
Not just web developers. Electron lovers should be trottled with 2GB of RAM machines and some older Celeron/Core Duo machine with a GL 2.1 compatible video card. It it desktop 'app' smooth on that machine, your project it's ready.
I was asked to look at the site when it was already live, and some VP of the parent company decided to visit the site from their phone at home.
> Our developers managed to run around 750MB per website open once.
This breaks my brain..."run around 750MB" "per website" "open once".
Do you mean your company had several websites (as in unique websites), and each had 750MB? Or the transferred data volume of each was 750MB? Or just the first page? Or the source code?
And do you mean "open once", as in "once upon a time", or if you open the website one time? Or did your developers open and shut websites, and the open ones had 750MB? Or one time when you entered your developer's office space, you saw they had opened several websites on their computers, random ones, and by coincidence you saw the network tabs and each was 750MB data transferred?
> 422 network requests and 49 megabytes of data
Just FYI how this generally works: it's not developers who add it, but non-technical people.
Developers only add a single