by shadowfaxRodeo on 8/9/21, 10:17 AM with 48 comments
by mhitza on 8/9/21, 11:19 AM
It rated as not mobile friendly (even if I have separate media queries for mobile/tablet).
It ranked negatively on MozRank (how well linked (?) it is from other websites, which I don't understand -- neither does it explains -- how it relates to eco friendliness). At least the main site itself is penalized by the same MozRank criteria.
Seems like a tool to generate leads to Mightybyte consulting services (who developed the tool, a founding organization behind sustainable web design).
About the manifesto I have mixed feelings, to me it feels rather "wishy washy".
Wish them luck with the project.
It also has the same bug I encounter often on full bleed designs where there's extra padding/margin that makes a horizontal scrollbar visible. Which reminds me that even experienced designers still don't have a good grasp on CSS /s
by kerblang on 8/9/21, 1:01 PM
I mean, hey, there are things we can do besides picketing amazon for building spaceships instead of solar arrays.
by heurisko on 8/9/21, 11:13 AM
by conradludgate on 8/9/21, 11:34 AM
by qwerty456127 on 8/9/21, 11:15 AM
This is not about "hunger to consume more data". Actual data doesn't take much. Needlessly inflated codebases and excessive video fidelity do.
Most of the people could use a decades-old computer and a <1Mbit/s connection to get and send all the information they might ever be interested in if we didn't insist on using huge JavaScript libraries, fancy design and HD+ video we lived perfectly well without just a decade ago. The problem is we seemingly need ever increasing everything to keep the economy growing.
by abbe98 on 8/9/21, 12:27 PM
Lot's of hosting companies including all the large clouds have marketing pages about their sustainability efforts but only an obscure, expense, and inaccessible Azure service can provide CO2 pollution estimations from ones usage...
by dubcanada on 8/9/21, 12:03 PM
I am a big fan of sustainability, but this seems a little bit much.
by shadowfaxRodeo on 8/9/21, 11:05 AM
The internet is responsible for around 5% of global carbon emissions. It's difficult to measure, and generally not visible to the public.
The solution however is fairly simple — use less data.
Fast, accessible websites usually produce less CO2 and we already know how to do that. Now we just need to get web developers to do it. This will require:
- educating developers and designers - smart defaults for web developers - fostering competition - making the invisible cost of the internet visible
This is a reletively new dicipline — so anything you have to add to the mix will have a large impact.
by lapinot on 8/9/21, 12:44 PM
As for the web, imho there's mostly one hard solution being static web-sites being aggressively cached in a broadcast tree (as in real offline-modes, website downloading). Just like high-speed personal transportation vs collective fixed-schedule medium-speed transportation. I'd guess internet consumption is not much dependent on distance, but speed and duplication of the transfers, that's probably a thing.
In this kind of realm i'd be curious to see the life-cycle energy cost comparison of radio-broadcast numeric TV vs cabled broadcast. Perhaps we could use numeric radio-broadcast as a distribution channel for many-to-one websites like news and newsletter-type of big social media profiles. I hope to one day say "oh it's 4:03 i'll tune my receiver to get the local blog updates".
by mro_name on 8/9/21, 12:40 PM
by yreg on 8/9/21, 12:11 PM
# Can you delete my test results?
If you have submitted a test and do not want the results public, then we have a simple policy:
[…]
If you have tested a public url we will not delete the results.
by geewee on 8/9/21, 11:57 AM
by mithusingh32 on 8/9/21, 12:11 PM
by draaglom on 8/9/21, 12:18 PM
IEA claims datacenters account for 1% of electricity demand and data networks are another 1%:
IEA (2020), Data Centres and Data Transmission Networks, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/data-centres-and-data-transmissi...
Now, those figures are _electricity_ not _carbon emissions_ - so perhaps the 3.8% figure includes e.g. datacenter construction emissions, or emissions related to producing servers and networking equipment?
by Joe8Bit on 8/9/21, 11:03 AM
by surfingdino on 8/9/21, 11:57 AM
by bsenftner on 8/9/21, 11:43 AM
by lexicality on 8/9/21, 11:36 AM
by sofixa on 8/9/21, 12:16 PM
How do they measure this? Do they have the electricity consumption and supply of each datacenter around the globe? Two DCz in Poland, one using coal energy, or another one using only renewable energies; the first one has latest gen servers and networking equipment; the second one 15 year old stuff. Which one uses less CO2?
There can be lots of differences depending on location and specificities.
by pluc on 8/9/21, 12:02 PM
by meerita on 8/10/21, 7:07 AM
by ethbr0 on 8/9/21, 10:58 AM
> Efficient
> The products and services we provide will use the least amount of energy and material resources possible.
Ha! Let's see how much impact this has on the current web industry.
Development velocity vs efficiency.
I've yet to see a shop avoid Tower of Babel stacks that increase the former, at the expense of the latter. Unless it's a backwards-compatible drop-in upgrade. And even then, it doesn't bubble high on the priority list.
[0] Obligatory https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BwozkbmjzC4