797
submitted 2 months ago by schizoidman@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] turkishdelight@lemmy.ml 176 points 2 months ago

Browsing the internet without uBlockbOrigin is bad for your health.

[-] herrvogel@lemmy.world 71 points 2 months ago

Ad blockers don't protect you against dumbass frontend devs who serve 5mb png files to be stuffed into 600x400 boxes.

[-] TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml 40 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You can set a limit in uBO settings to prevent loading of files/elements above x KB in size. You will just see a red dotted blank space for elements comically large, and they will load if you click them, if needed.

Edit: here is what you need to change

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] ColdWater@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 months ago

I especially hated wallpaper website that load full size pictures on previews grids

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kalpol@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago

Raymond Hill is a hero of our times. Not even kidding.

[-] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 28 points 2 months ago

*googles the name*

Raymond Earl Hill was an American tenor saxophonist and singer, best known as a member of Ike Turner's Kings of Rhythm in the 1950s.

Well, I mean we all have our own ideas about the world.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 148 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

At work we have this timecard management system that's an enormous pain to use. All the bottom rung employees hate it because it's anything but intuitive. For example, it has stupid things like weekdays sorted alphabetically and a scroll bar to select the day of the month in a form. It's like the interfaces were tested exactly one time and never visited again, so long as it works minimally.

What's this crappy app have to do with big web pages? That application is awful for us worker bees, but management loves it because it produces nice reports. Management is the real customer for which the product is optimized. Similarly, many web pages are awful because they're mainly rated on how it looks. Nobody is including how fast it loads in the contract, and at the product demo you bet those resources are cached in the browser.

Ask yourself: who with the money in hand is actually looking at how fast the page loads on a slow connection or low-end devices?

TLDR: Looks > performance.

[-] Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de 56 points 2 months ago

it has stupid things like weekdays sorted alphabetically

Holy shit, that's stupid. Why would you even do this in the first place?! I can't comprehend how anyone could come to the conclusion that that's a good way to sort it.

[-] franklin@lemmy.world 52 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

alphabetically was probably the default sorting method for an array of data and they didn't bother to fix it, just my guess.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

Friday Monday Saturday Sunday Thursday Tuesday Wednesday

In its defense, that also flows better if you're trying to sing it.

[-] lemann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 months ago

At my current dev role I try to do optimizations to make new system area pages pretty lightweight, but it's a bit of a struggle as I'm working with devs who have been in the same role for decades. WCAG is not prioritized, and they pull in a ton of JS libraries that usually aren't even used. A lot of the practices I see in use are from 10 years ago, but slowly tidying up the horror show with each dev product meeting.

Admittedly could be much worse though, at least our pages aren't 21MB large.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 119 points 2 months ago

Original post is a much better read than this blogspam

[-] saddlebag@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago

I'm all for reducing the size of webpages with garbage bloat but a little CSS for readability on this site would have gone a long way.

Ps. thanks for sauce

[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago

I don't agree with him, but if you read the last appendix, this mf wrote half an essay on why he prefers to have basically no styling

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Lojcs@lemm.ee 15 points 2 months ago

The appendices of that post could use a rewrite. They read weird:

An example we've discussed before, is at a well-known, prestigious, startup that has a very left-leaning employee base, where everyone got rich, on a discussion about the covid stimulus checks, in a slack discussion, a well meaning progressive employee said that it was pointless because people would just use their stimulus checks to buy stock.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 112 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If only they paid web developers more...

I could not give two fucks about the memory efficiency of a web page I worked on since I barely take enough home to afford groceries.

Unless they pay me more to care, it's still your problem internet person.

[-] chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net 86 points 2 months ago

A lot of devs I know are purely ticket in ticket out… so unless someone convinced management there’s a performance problem and that they’d need to prioritize it over new features (good luck), then it will not be done.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 24 points 2 months ago

i (barely) get paid to solve tickets, i'm not gonna fight with management for them to do their job properly.

[-] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Not to suggest you don't deserve to be paid more, but it feels like the issue would more be that the people paying for the site aren't instructing the people that develop it to make these accommodations.

Because I know plenty of devs that just straight up don't give a shit about accommodating low-end devices, regardless of what they're paid. It's like a point of pride almost.

Hell, that's the energy of the DontKillMyApp people: they just straight up think their app should use as many resources as it likes as long as it likes, and they shouldn't have to be considerate in development. Strain on device be damned.

I've seen some that straight up admit they don't even think the user should be able to kill an app process.

[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 15 points 2 months ago

I know this isn't the main point of your comment, but DontKillMyApp is about much more than system resource management. It's about consistent behavior so that developers can program to a standard rather than a wild west of whatever a handset decides to do.

Either you write your app to accommodate every special case implementation of background execution requirements, or users get upset when the instant message isn't delivered and blame the app.

To make matters worse, many Chinese devices just kill everything in the background that's not on a hard coded whitelist. This is a failure of Android when it doesn't require consistent behavior. On these devices, applications that have a legitimate reason to run in the background just don't work correctly.

I think the situation is getting much better with recent Android versions.

[-] Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 2 months ago

To make matters worse, many Chinese devices just kill everything in the background that's not on a hard coded whitelist.

Looking at Xiaomi's Miui here. My last phone was a Xiaomi one and it was great. It didn't take long for me to install LineageOS on it tho because Miui is horrible. It killed every app you had opened the second you switched to another one. Things like email verification codes were literally impossible to enter into an app because when you went into your mail app, copied the code and then went back into the app you wanted to enter it in, that app would have to start up again because it was already killed in the background.

Also, Miui itself used up like half my RAM without anything being opened and it was buggy as hell.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ech@lemm.ee 91 points 2 months ago

I have been just bewildered at the proliferation of excessive scripts and garbage on seemingly every webpage over the last decade. I'm no web-dev, but I'm pretty positive that the vast majority of websites could remove 99-some percent of their javascript bs and their websites would function just fine. So many are pretty much unusable these days. It's atrocious.

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 39 points 2 months ago

I've been working at organizing a bunch of stuff I've been collecting over the years .... data, writing, lists, ideas, whatever ..... I kept using all sorts of services, apps, websites, cloud services and all sorts of crap to maintain them all but eventually it all becomes too complicated and breaks down.

I've since discovered just using simple text files and services that just use simple text mark down ... no special service, nothing proprietary, easily transferable and interoperable.

I started looking at websites the same way ..... I don't care what it looks like, I just want to read the information ..... you made it too hard for me to read your simple text info? You're asking me to turn off my ad blockers and turn on Java script? All to read 200 words on your site? I'll skip it and move on to the next site that will allow me.

[-] legios@aussie.zone 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I manage a web dev team. We try to optimise as much as possible but then there's all sorts of tracking that gets tacked on by personalisation teams, opti teams, things like Tik Tok, Facebook, Twitter/X scripts inserted too... It's pretty shit. And sometimes when things break it makes it super hard to debug too

[-] faintbeep@lemm.ee 26 points 2 months ago

I'm a web dev and yes they could. It's annoying that web devs get blamed for it though, the reason for all the javascript is mostly business decisions out of our control.

Mainly the tracking scripts which the marketing department adds against out will. But also it's a lot cheaper to have a client-rendered web app than a traditional website (with client side rendering you can shut off all your web servers and just keep the api servers, our server side processing went down 90% in the switchover). And it's more efficient for the company to have one team working in one programming language and one framework that can run the backend and frontend, so the frontend ends being a web app even if it's not really necessary.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MashedTech@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago
[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

I made a stupid little page that downloads a Pathfinder 2e SRD API, and then randomly combines an ancestry, background, and class from that list and displays it on screen. It's really nothing special, I hacked it together in an afternoon. But I showed it to a friend and they were blown away that I didn't use a framework for it. I was like, "it does three things. Why would it need a framework? What would I even use a framework for?"

They still couldn't believe I did it by hand.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DestroyMegacorps@lemmy.ml 67 points 2 months ago

And thats why i believe that ublock origin is needed for modern web browsing

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 55 points 2 months ago

My simple home page is 10 KB now. And you might not think that's such a big deal, but it has more content than Google's search page and that rings in at a couple MB IIRC. 😁

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 46 points 2 months ago

B-B-BUT STORAGE'S CHEAP, BRAH!!!11! INTERNET'S FAST!!!11 CPUS ARE POWERFUL11!

[-] humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 months ago

Sorry, not everyone speaks rich and not everyone speaks poor

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 35 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You see, stuff like this is why I never understood the wave of "Android Go" and "Lite/Go" apps a couple of years ago.
On my old low end phone, the native Twitter app ran infinitely better than the Web based "Twitter Lite". This applied to almost every "Lite" app compared to their regular versions.
I feel like whoever started that "Webapps are great for low end" concept never actually tried to run a modern Webapp on a slow phone.

Edit: My comment is focused mostly on the push of Webapps on low end phones. I'm sure there are great, proper "Lite Apps", and I quite like the idea of Android Go, I just think the implementation missed the mark and that a lot of companies pushed out a crappy, poorly thought out webview just to cash in the "Lite" trend without caring about the end user.

[-] dRLY@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago

I only ever used the lite version of FB Messenger. Shit was much better than the full version, especially without all the bloated "features" that I didn't use at best and being annoying/battery drains at worst. Was noticeably snappier on both my old and new phones. Fortunately most of my friends started using Discord and/or Signal with better features (and one less Meta app to have running).

I think that the idea of having smaller and less demanding versions of lots of apps is a good idea. As so many apps are just not optimized and bloated. Just being coded to rely on higher specs to make up for said lack of effort in cleaning up stuff. The ads on ads on ads being part of the issue as well. Which is only getting worse with the close buttons not loading unless shit has been however many seconds. Seems that the "hit box" for the close buttons is getting smaller and smaller to guaranty the ads are clicked on and then open another app or a browser. Though optimizations and better coding won't fix dirty underhanded grifts.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 32 points 2 months ago

See also The Website Obesity Crisis, nearly a decade ago.

Here’s an article on GigaOm from 2012 titled "The Growing Epidemic of Page Bloat". It warns that the average web page is over a megabyte in size.

The article itself is 1.8 megabytes long.

The problem with picking any particular size as a threshold is that it encourages us to define deviancy down. Today’s egregiously bloated site becomes tomorrow’s typical page, and next year’s elegantly slim design.

The author links their tweet saying "your website should not exceed in file size the major works of Russian literature." At the time, that page on Twitter was 900 KB. Today it is 11 MB.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Zikeji@programming.dev 29 points 2 months ago

My old project I got to architect the frontend ran lean at around 300KB - part of our target audience had older phones so it was designed with that in mind.

At my new job 22MB is child's play. To be fair they might do it better with the next version.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 27 points 2 months ago

I ended up using a static site generator for my personal site because I fucking hate JS and frameworks and WebComponents. The front page is 646 KB and it loads in 4 seconds. I'd love for it to be 1 second or less, but the fonts are a factor.

And I shrunk the shit out of that background too with pngcrush so miss me with that.

[-] autokludge@programming.dev 16 points 2 months ago

Haven't done this type of optimizing in a long time, I had a quick look at the network graph for your front page (F12 dev tools in desktop browser), my understanding is it looks like you are getting blocked from loading additional resources (fonts + background) until your style sheets are fully read --pink line is document loaded i believe.

It may be worthwhile to experiment with adding some preload links to the html template? or output? like below and assessing if it makes things faster for you.

<link rel="preload" as="image" href="https://volcanolair.co/img/bg1-ultracompressed.webp" fetchpriority="high">

<link rel="preload" as="font" href="https://volcanolair.co/fonts/Inter-Regular.woff2">

<link rel="preload" as="font" href="https://volcanolair.co/fonts/Inter-Bold.woff2">

___

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 months ago

Honestly, 4 seconds is really slow, especially with static HTML. I built my first companies' site myself, it includes a video on the front page and jquery, is built by PHP, and on descent Internet connections the front page will load in slightly over a second, other pages dip under that.

There are loads of tweaks you can make to -any- site, and total amount of bytes really isn't the only speed factor here.

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I love all your replies.

You wouldn’t get these responses from stackoverflow.

This isn’t even a programming or development community…it’s a general interest one.

You didn’t even ask for help.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[-] ItsAFake@lemmus.org 13 points 2 months ago

When ever I used to have issues with my internet I used to use news.com.au as a test to see if the issue was fixed, if that site loaded than anything would.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
797 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

33331 readers
187 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS