The size in KB of web pages these days

[amcdonald]

Except it's usually driven by idiotic marketing departments that want to stuff as much crap as possible on every page.

Lol current clients marketing has insisted on putting 8-10 Meg photos linked on every page as a kind of media wall and then complain the sites slow under load

Any sensible suggestions of scaling them down is ignored

[Zippy]

The Daily Mirror site is particularly bad (in more ways than one)

[milanbenes]

You can bypass a lot of that nonsense, by judicious adding of adware hostnames to your local host file, mapped to localhost.

merci,

Milan.

[OwlHoot]

Jeez, when I were a lad it were all about keeping the landing page of a
website with as low kb as possible

everything was counted image sizes etc and the goal was to be less than 100kb

fast forward to today...

now that I have my E5 I can see immediately how many kb is coming down when I go on a website, and sites like....

Torygraph.co.uk

bloomberg

reuters

they're getting on for 1.5mb on the first page ..

You can bypass a lot of that nonsense, by judicious adding of adware hostnames to your local host file, mapped to localhost.

[DimPrawn]

True, but the number of websites that aren't using content delivery networks, compression, and minifying css and js, images that aren't optimised in size, caching techniques, etc.

Lazy development.

[Bunk]

Yes, web devs are lazy barstards.

Except it's usually driven by idiotic marketing departments that want to stuff as much crap as possible on every page.

[MarillionFan]

rant rant, t'internet different in my day rant rant developers today rant rant tapes didn't used to change themselves you know rant rant

Milan.

ftfy

[DimPrawn]

it reminds me of the ms solution to making a huge profit, keep making the same software and just rename it each year.

Yes, web devs are lazy barstards.

[milanbenes]

Jeez, when I were a lad it were all about keeping the landing page of a
website with as low kb as possible

everything was counted image sizes etc and the goal was to be less than 100kb

fast forward to today...

now that I have my E5 I can see immediately how many kb is coming down when I go on a website, and sites like....

Torygraph.co.uk

bloomberg

reuters

they're getting on for 1.5mb on the first page

what's going on ?


and another thing,

has anyone noticed often webpages like torygraph, dailymail etc seem to hang for a few seconds when loading, if you trace them you can see there are zillions of links to tracking sites and often these are taking the time to load

is this progress ?

it reminds me of the ms solution to performance, keep making the software fatter and rely on faster processors and ram

the same has happened for web pages instead of keeping them at ~100kb and users getting faster and faster download speed as a benefit of the faster internet connections and faster pc's, no, instead because of the faster pc's and internet connections the web pages just get fatter

rant over

Milan.