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.
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.
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?
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
