Huh, I didn't think it costs kilobytes to buy aesthetics.
Of course, aesthetics are a matter of subjectivity, so what is pleasing to one might be gaudy or bare to another. It is largely a matter of picking your audience, I think.
Clicked on about 4 pages and all were "Hi this is a simple site of links I like!" type pages.
There's a power law dropoff in how interesting things like this are as they get followup/copycat treatment (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=follow-up%20by%3Adang&dateRang...). It's a bit like telling the same joke several times in a row.
How about 10ms club?
I'd rather wait 5 seconds for a straight answer than deal with a really fast, but really annoying website.
And why is 512KB acceptable but 4MB a problem? Yes the web is a bloated mess, but there's no point drawing random lines on meaningless metrics. Just focus on providing a good user experience. A few bytes of bad JavaScript can mess up your site's performance, while several well-optimized MBs can make it accessible and useful.
That's incorrect. If you analyse the structure of the site (link below), ~800KB of the 4.4MB uncompressed homepage is images. 1.3MB is JavaScript, another 1.2MB is HTML (how is that even possible?)
https://gtmetrix.com/reports/www.theguardian.com/xSnIUn3X/
> And why is 512KB acceptable but 4MB a problem?
Um, because it's an 8th of the size and there are still many people in the world that don't have fast internet access.
> A few bytes of bad JavaScript can mess up your site's performance, while several well-optimized MBs can make it accessible and useful.
Agree with the JS, but not the images. Well omptimised imaged should hit multiple megabytes unless its some kind of gallery with many images. Using srcset to load resized images is a much better way of doing this.
That would be more interesting to me.
