From HN comments: "Gemini sites load so fast, it's a little crazy". Not at all, what's crazy is that we've come to accept as normal that downloading O(1000) words of text that we actually care about reading takes long enough to notice and sometimes might make your laptop fan spin up a little - in 2020!

I feel like I am quoting Maciej Cegłowski's "The Website Obesity Crisis" every other week at this point, but it's such a super-condensed source of white-hot truth and insight that I don't feel bad:

"Let’s commit to the idea that as computers get faster, and as networks get faster, the web should also get faster."

This is the most obvious and natural idea in the world, but somehow it's a genuinely radical position. I think the battle is lost on the web, but if you start again and only put in what you need you just arrive by default at a situation of what feels like breakneck speed.

@solderpunk Sure, a typical 90s website is quite snappy with modern networks and computers. It is also rather ugly. The question that should be asked is, what is an acceptable load time? Let's say 100 ms is deemed fast enough. A speed-up to 10 ms would then be of little benefit. The extra capacity might be better spent making the page better in some other way. The trouble with too many websites is that they take seconds to load, not that they are larger per se.

@mansr @solderpunk Part of the problem is that the rendering engine should be doing the job of making it look good, not the markup

Markup should be made to look good by default, and the 90s websites were written for 90s design sensibilities, 90s monitors, and 90s rendering, they were not ugly in their time, and using modern design language doesn't require bad practice

@mansr @solderpunk websites today routinely download four or five times the size of Moby Dick for each page load in order to display less than a thousand words of actual content.

Even accounting for caching that's a tremendous amount of waste, and bandwidth quotas are still a thing in most of the world so you're burning through users bandwidth for absolutely nothing. Not to mention battery on mobile devices.

For fluff.

@mansr @solderpunk also check out and

With just HTML and CSS you've got really good looking minimalist websites, no bloat, fully semantic if you write your HTML right, loads instantly, etc.

We're not choosing between pretty fat sites and ugly slimmed sites, that's a false dichotomy.

We're choosing between bad sites and good sites.

Choose good.

@solderpunk The waste today is just infuriating.
Compared to when I started we now have infinite cpu, ram, and storage, and yet your UI is slower today than it was in the 80s.

@solderpunk Take a look at my account's header image! I took it from that talk...

@solderpunk to put it into other terms: 60 years ago, 64k memory was sufficiant for a guidance computer on the Apollo moon mission. Today, your computer should have 8g RAM to browse an average website.

@solderpunk i certainly agree with that estatement. I think that people pay more attention to aestetic over funtionality and that's the wrong approach in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I like pretty sites with a beautiful design but only wjen that aestetic and design does not get in the way of functionality. The mindset changed too much the functionality means something different compared to 20 years ago too. :ablobcatcoffee:

Sign in to participate in the conversation

masto instance for the tildeverse