Conversation

Notices

1. 寮 (ryo@social.076.moe)'s status on Monday, 16-Jan-2023 13:47:03 JST 寮
   So, the client wants me to implement lazy loading.
   I thought, what the fuck is lazy loading!?
   
   Cuckzilla:
   https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Performance/Lazy_loading
   
   > Overview
   >
   > As the web has evolved, we have come to see huge increases in the number and size of assets sent to users. Between 2011 and 2019, the median resource weight increased from ~100KB to ~400KB for desktop and ~50KB to ~350KB for mobile. While Image size has increased from ~250KB to ~900KB on desktop and ~100KB to ~850KB on mobile.
   
   So basically, you're aware that there's a problem, great!
   
   > One of the methods we can use to tackle this problem is to shorten the Critical Rendering Path length by lazy loading resources that are not critical for the first render to happen. A practical example would be when, you land on the home page of an e-commerce site which has a link to a cart page/section and all its resources (JS, CSS, images…) are downloaded only when the user navigates to that cart page.
   
   Motherfucker...
   How about we just reduce the size by cutting out stuff we don't need, and making images weight less?
   It was possible 10 years ago, it was the norm 20 years ago, and absolutely mandatory 30 years ago, so why should it be impossible today?
   
   Furthermore, the right way is to load all necessary resources, render it all, and then make the website accessible, not the other way around!
   • xianc78 and NeonkAaa like this.
   • xianc78@gameliberty.club's status on Monday, 16-Jan-2023 13:49:27 JST xianc78

     in reply to

     @ryo The job I'm training for encourages eager loading which is the exact opposite of that.

     寮 likes this.
   • 寮 (ryo@social.076.moe)'s status on Monday, 16-Jan-2023 14:04:52 JST 寮

     in reply to

     • xianc78
     It's the default, so no attribute is necessary.
   • Terminal Autism (terminalautism@social.076.moe)'s status on Monday, 16-Jan-2023 14:47:31 JST Terminal Autism

     in reply to
     "why should it be impossible today?"
     Because if people make things simple, then anyone will be able to make a browser and corporations like Google and their branches (like Mozilla) will have no excuse to exist anymore, and then it will be harder for psychopaths to hoard massive amounts of resources and power, and life will be better. And they can't have that, that's not acceptable.
     寮 likes this.
   • NeonkAaa (nk@sns.neonka.info)'s status on Monday, 16-Jan-2023 16:31:55 JST NeonkAaa

     in reply to

     @ryo
     Or at least use those progressive jpegs (ง ื▿ ื)ว

   • 寮 (ryo@social.076.moe)'s status on Monday, 16-Jan-2023 23:56:15 JST 寮

     in reply to

     • NeonkAaa
     Just use animated GIFs, these were normal in the Web 1.0 era, and frowned upon now in the Web 2.0 era, because not allowed to have nice things, everyone must follow the stupid "modern desoygn" that nobody likes except for the normalfags. https://social.076.moe/url/70667
   • NeonkAaa (nk@sns.neonka.info)'s status on Tuesday, 17-Jan-2023 01:07:13 JST NeonkAaa

     in reply to

     @ryo
     That's a common "not-made-by-us issue"

   • Terminal Autism (terminalautism@social.076.moe)'s status on Tuesday, 17-Jan-2023 10:30:05 JST Terminal Autism

     in reply to
     I bet that some current year soydevs would actually have the audacity to say that you shouldn't use GIFs because they slow things down. Meanwhile they use 50 MB (which is 6.25 times bigger than Super Mario 64) to get black text on a white background, on top of requiring enormous web browsers that also have no features because they were all removed, so you have to add them all back through extensions, and install more extensions to replace all the broken shit that doesn't work right. It's awful.
     
     Speaking of games, this game does the internet better than the internet, and I don't have it, but I fucking bet that it runs better than actual websites do on actual browsers.
     https://youtube.076.ne.jp/watch?v=dHyiXLRETNc
     寮 likes this.
   • 寮 (ryo@social.076.moe)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Jan-2023 15:52:13 JST 寮

     in reply to

     • Terminal Autism
     I made the argument on IRC the other day (or was it here? I'm too boomer to remember) about how how those who complain about a 900 KiB GIF file because "think of the mobile users and their crappy data limits" would happily insert a 14 MiB MP4 file that's on autoplay, has no controls (so you can't stop it), and without audio into their already way too bloated "mobile friendly" websoyte filled with ads, trackers, and other unnecessary JS/CSS cruft.
   • Terminal Autism (terminalautism@social.076.moe)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 02:47:21 JST Terminal Autism

     in reply to
     I think I have seen that about GIFs in general, regardless of size. We're in the 2020s for JavaScript, people are fine with that slowing everything down, but suddenly if you use GIFs you have to pretend that we're back in 90s internet speeds.
     
     900 KB would be a pretty big one, so you wouldn't want too many of those on every page (though you would need fucking 50 of them to get even close to the size of a bunch of websites), but it's fine. It's just like any other image, you don't want a ton of gigantic PNGs in your website either.
     
     My mentality is that anything that was fine in the early 2000s is DEFINITELY fine now. It worked back then, and it works now, on much faster connections. If you use small GIFs, you can use a massive amount of them with no negative effect on performance.
     
     And you can use small ones, because one thing that people don't get nowadays is that not everything has to be as big as possible. Most images don't really benefit from being in a huge resolution, and some of them, like buttons on a website, don't benefit from not being as small as possible.
     
     You can see it in art nowadays, how there are so many pictures in really simple art styles, that have no reason to be even 1 MB in size, but are like, 5, or 10. Why does a stick figure need to be drawn in "4K"? It doesn't, it's a stick figure, it's a simple thing, it doesn't have the amount of detail that would require that.
     
     Also, you see this in video. Why do people record videos that are mostly static images in 60 FPS? Or even 30, even that is overkill. If you are going to record a game running at 60 FPS, then record it at 60 as well, but if you're doing a tech video, then why not do 20? Or maybe even less? There's just not enough motion to justify that many frames.
     
     And it applies to resolution as well. Have you ever noticed how people that do tech videos are constantly making their font size bigger during the video, so people can see what they're doing? Are they slow in the head? Why don't people just lower the fucking resolution?! It makes things larger, and easier to see without fullscreen, AND it makes the file sizes smaller, so it's easier to archive things, or even host them yourself!
     
     My Libsixel video is 68.3 MB for over 27 minutes. And I don't even know how to do the best possible compression, I just did the default ffmpeg one. And the frame rate could have been lower (my gaming videos, on the other hand, are 60 FPS, but the lowest resolution that I can set X to on my system, which is 640x480). But I have downloaded videos before, that were mostly static images, that were like, a GB in size, and not even as long.
     
     Ridiculously wasteful. And this trend of larger and larger file sizes gives corporations more power, by making things artificially harder to host! It also makes it harder for people to download things and keep them. You would think that tech people in particular would care more about efficiency, especially the MUH MEMEMALISM people. https://social.076.moe/url/74764
   • 寮 (ryo@social.076.moe)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 11:10:53 JST 寮

     in reply to

     • Terminal Autism
     900 KiB (= 921.6 kB) for a webpage is problematic, yes.
     But 900 KiB for a GIF is actually still pretty small, as it's pretty easy to make them weight 15 MiB on a 4 second long animation.
     Then again, depends on what you use to make that animation, this (http://ryocafe.i2p/static/klee-bomb.gif) (requires I2P to view, otherwise replace "ryocafe.i2p" with asc7ewkcvat2wsoi5yuwkej5ukyrqqnpnzpj4u34r2jxnoxhnbx6yqad.onion for Tor) for example is only 378 KiB (= 387 kB).
   • Terminal Autism (terminalautism@social.076.moe)'s status on Friday, 20-Jan-2023 03:35:59 JST Terminal Autism

     in reply to
     I don't think it's all that small. Look, this is a pretty detailed GIF, and it's 40.9 kB. At this size, you can use quite a lot of them and it really won't make much of a difference. People don't make small GIFs very often anymore, though. They are not intended to be used in say, a website's UI, anymore. https://social.076.moe/url/76524