by golfer on 11/2/19, 7:48 PM with 69 comments
by jakear on 11/2/19, 8:17 PM
> Come on. Look at the experience and tell me you expected it to be 1kb? This is an interactive application, not a text document. [...] We have started to chase a false “unicorn” narrative of websites with expected app-like experiences, but sizes like text documents from the 2000s. Something doesn’t add up.
by mrtksn on 11/2/19, 8:20 PM
Youtube is amazing, it starts playing the video before even the video title is rendered or any other part of the page is loaded. Who cares if it downloads who knows how many megabytes of JS or HTML before the DOM is ready?
On the other hand, after clicking on a tweet link Twitter would show me multiple loading indicator, load the main page then show me some more loading indicator and then show me the tweet text and after a while, I can see the images attached to the tweet. It is often the same for any other "Web App".
On Apple's case, the page actually becomes usable almost instantly. The page would first show me the title on the black background and then the airpods photo would fade in from the darkness and I would be able to scroll immediately. I would say, the experience is closer to Youtube than Twitter.
by IdontRememberIt on 11/2/19, 8:20 PM
by izacus on 11/2/19, 8:43 PM
A lot of iOS and macOS software and websites are designed with assumption of having good infrastructure only affluent western world has.
by reaperducer on 11/2/19, 9:18 PM
If anyone knows how this is achieved, I'd love to follow some links.
by why-oh-why on 11/3/19, 10:34 AM
How’s that a good experience?
On mobile it would be super easy to just have it snap in place: one flick goes to the next “slide.”
But no. Let’s treat websites as videos and the scroll as a way to manually play them.
by rauchp on 11/2/19, 8:20 PM
Those numbers definitely make it sound like it's not the ideal solution for the client. But from Apple's perspective, does anyone know how much more their servers are being taxed per-view? (Not sure if they have caching solutions to alleviate the load. That is a lot of packets to send, though.)
by droithomme on 11/2/19, 9:52 PM
This machine doesn't have retina. Maybe for retina machines it loads larger artwork. Also there's a bunch of errors in the console including:
Error: WebGL: Disallowing antialiased backbuffers due to blacklisting.main.built.js:10:16167
Error: Cannot find module '@marcom/ac-polyfills/Array/prototype.forEach' ac-analytics.js:1:166
Strict-Transport-Security: The site specified a header that could not be parsed successfully
The errors don't seem to have affected anything, but maybe more stuff didn't load because of the errors.
Oh wait people are seeing video? Yeah I don't get any videos.
by ksec on 11/3/19, 6:36 PM
by rcar on 11/2/19, 8:18 PM
by dang on 11/3/19, 4:27 AM
by gandutraveler on 11/3/19, 5:46 AM
Also what is a recommended tool of 2019 to convert video to images ?
by uxamanda on 11/2/19, 9:49 PM
Does anyone know if there is a way to detect that setting from within Safari? Would be cool to provide a low-fi version of a page if that was detected.
by ErikAugust on 11/3/19, 4:55 AM
Trim strips it down to 12KB. And really it still conveys the message with just text just fine.
by jasonvorhe on 11/2/19, 10:00 PM
by jaunkst on 11/2/19, 8:32 PM
by m0zg on 11/2/19, 9:27 PM
by jokoon on 11/2/19, 8:25 PM
If that can be done server-side, it might reduce page weight. If it's not possible, well, I guess HTML should be removed from the face of the earth. The language has too much nonsense and ambiguity. The fact that html can now have its structure dynamically changed with javascript inserting string at random places means it will always let web developers build bloated websites like this.
I really don't know how to solve such problem. Usually the language will encourage the flawed usages it allows. A language must always put constraints to avoid unwanted usages. Either that or have browsers not display pages that are too large, by having a size limit or something of that fashion.