Hacker News Reader

Comment by MrVandemar | Hacker News Reader

Tiny Awards for Small Websites is awarded the prestigious and highly coveted "Boatload of Unecessary Javascript Blocking Content Award" by me.

View on HN

Yep. About 1.7 MB of JavaScript (yeah, less across the wire) to do literally nothing interactive, and have a janky, ridiculously-scaled document where everything is the same shade of blue, links are not distinguished in any way, and a decorative image even collides with the text in one place. The whole thing should have been under 20KB of pure HTML, SVG and CSS.

Found a tracker in it that the usual uBlock Origin lists aren’t blocking, too: https://api.june.so/sdk/{page,track}.

Really doesn’t endear mmm.page to me.

We will do a https://1kb.club/ site next year.

Genuinely curious, why does the page make 20+ requests for ~1.5Mb of non-content for a site that quite literally exists to showcase small websites? Oversight?

“Tiny Awards is a small prize awarded by an equally-small selection committee of online makers to the website which we feel best embodies the idea of a small, playful and heartfelt web.”

I think they use another definition of "small" than most of tech-oriented folks here at HN. They don't seem to be interested in filesizes, number of requests, or even usability. They used a WYSIWG builder (see their advertisement somewhere else in this thread), which is responsible for all of the bloat. It looked good on their (fruity?) devices, and they went with it. It doesn't look like anyone with a technical sensibility was ever involved.

In another comment the author wrote that the page is built with a WYSIWYG editor. Those tend to come with a lot of bloat and home-made tracking...

I’m sure this is in jest, but it truly is baffling that this purely informational webpage is so massive.

I believe the “small” web is more than being an independent entity and instead also should avoid wasted resources. Developers need to respect their end users’ bandwidth and time. Just my two cents.

Ironically “just my two cents” is a waste of both bandwidth and time.

* breathes *

* grunts *

* breathes *

Gotta do something with the bandwidth you saved on JS bloat

It's not baffling at all, they are using a WYSIWIG CMS that adds a lot of JS.

I guess this is one way to take in criticism. The fact remains that this page delivers around ~3kB of actual data out of 1.9MB (~682kB compressed).

This is 0.001% (0.004%) of meaningful data, surrounded by bells, whistles and tracking cookies.

"No, it's the children who are wrong."

I thought you were exaggerating, but no, everything literally is one color and links look just like regular text.

Tiny in scope, not tiny in size.

It says nothing about page size, but 80% of the comments are pointless bickering about JavaScript by grumpy HN readers that prefer their web experience to be permanently stuck in 2005.

I will never understand how do you never get bored of fighting windmills.

It doesn’t mention scope anywhere. It says “small web”, and last I checked “small” implies size, not scope.

How do you not get bored of fighting windmills?

A small website means something that is a one-person operation and personal in nature. Only on HN could that be interpreted to mean 'smallest possible file size'.

> A small website means something that is a one-person operation and personal in nature. Only on HN could that be interpreted to mean 'smallest possible file size'.

Your definition of ‘small website’ is certainly a reasonable one, but I think to claim that only a tech geek could think that ‘small’ meant ‘small file size’ is overstating it.

I didn't say tech geek, I said HN. Tech geeks understand personal websites. Only on HN do those threads turn into monotonous pontifications about Hugo v Ghost or whether a site renders with JS turned off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com