Hacker News Reader

Comment by aikah | Hacker News Reader

I'd argue while the UX is questionable (panning the page right to left while the user scroll down), the website loads pretty fast, which is a good thing, and the scrolling is smooth. The page also weights less than 14 MB.

Here is an example of horrible UX plus horrible loading time plus janky scrolling brought you by Google. 60 seconds after the page was open the content of the top of the page was still not done loading (72MB before I closed the page).

https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_3

I think it's hardly just a matter of design here.

View on HN

>less than 14 MB

It's kind of crazy to me that even that's considered low

Agree. And that people feel the need to say "At least it works without Javascript". Our standards have become really low. I would argue that for product sites like this we have massively regressed over the last 10-15 years. Sites that used be easy to read and find information have become a nightmare of one useful paragraph per page.

Well, I guess it's a little crazy if all you were expecting was 8-bit graphics. But for content like that, yeah, I'm amazed it fits in 14MB.

I remember when Firefox 2.0 came out, it was 6 MB.

Way more impressive, though, was Opera 9 at 5 MB, which, unlike Firefox, also had a built-in email client, IRC client, download manager, BitTorrent client, ad blocker, debugger (Firebug was an extension at the time), sync, and several other impressive features.

It’s mostly high-res images, so I think that might be OK in this case.

Why do they need these monster images?

So it looks nice when people browse the website on high-resolution screens?

I guess this is a good example of what's wrong with today's web designs. There is almost no content on the page,scrolling is f...ed Up, but we get some nice looking high res images.

Since this is a product page, I wonder how much of that 14MB is binary data vs. how much is HMTL/JS/CSS. Binary stuff tends to inflate sizes by a pretty big amount, and 14MB wouldn't be big if you've got a lot of high-resolution hero shots. 14MB bundle size would be ridiculous, though.

I get horrible scrolling on the Apple one and smooth as butter on the Google one. This is Chrome on a 2013 MBP OSX Mojave. I will say that the Google one takes way too long to load things for sure.

Less than 14mb is low? I don't see why that page should be more than 1mb or just around that

> Less than 14mb is low? I don't see why that page should be more than 1mb or just around that

If you carefully read my message, nowhere I'm saying 14MB (not mb) is "low".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com