Why is this allowed? Is this the result of hiring wannabe graphic

>>56382512
Because most people have the attention span of a 5yo. Gotta have lots of pictures and flash.

>open a web page on an old netbook
>processor temps soar, you can actually hear the fan

How can we stop this?

File: 1471214147514.jpg (74KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 480x640px

>>56382512

'Web 2.0' fucking sucks shit.

I miss the days when things were simpler.

>>56382664
You mean web 3.0

If you're complaining about webpage size, I wouldn't do it on an imageboard

Also, who fucking cares. You're comparing an era with shitty graphics to an era where 3d graphics within a canvas are possible. If you want technology to increase the data also has to increase.

Also, I fucking hate wired now. A bunch of dumbass bloggers now.

>>56383204
t. clinically retarded inbred hick.

File: 1453819481206.jpg (27KB, 372x338px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 372x338px

>>56382512
>Why is this allowed?
>1.87 MB

This wouldn't be so much of a problem if fiber were standard.

>>56383204
>If you're complaining about webpage size, I wouldn't do it on an imageboard

This thread is around 530kb.

>>56383344
173KB when zipped

>>56383344
725 KB including recaptcha script (over 200 kb) and the puddi gif title (over 100 kb).
The native extension is 160 kb, too.

The html + 1 css amounts for less than 47 kb total.

File: 1472779251258.jpg (309KB, 1267x4413px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1267x4413px

>>56382512
>1.87MB 1267x4413 PNG
Try 300KB JPG

>>56382512
because the people that code efficiently and with love are busy with more important stuff/dont fucking care anymore
most of the web developers are just money slaves - programming is not anything close to an art for them

>>56382512
maybe their bosses fuck around taking decissions of what looks better on a subjective bias.

>>56383404
>comparing size/quality ratio of images to efficiency of coding
nigga wut
also your jpg looks like shit compared to the png
why wont you use b/w if you want it to take less kilobahts faggot

>>56383489
Not arguing about the efficiency of coding in modern websites.
Just pointing out that an image, made by OP, detailing how websites are 2-3 Megabytes large, is itself almost 2MB large...

>>56383552
What is the point in that?
OP is talking about the inefficiency of website coding, hence the post comparing them to DOOM
Sizes of media are a whole another discussion, which also involves quality in relation to the size

>>56383489
How about flif then?

https://0x0.st/uSK.flif

JavaScript is horrible.

>>56383643
Cool, actually, never heard of it
Why is not supported in mah browsers!

>>56383667
This. We need to remove all javascript documentation from the web and ban jQuery

According to the HTTP archive the AVERAGE Web page now

is over 1.7MB,
makes over 90 HTTP requests,
has over 275K of JavaScript,
makes 17 HTTP requests for JavaScript alone,
includes over 1MB of images,
makes only 46% of its resources cacheable.

>>56382512
Get a better computer. Poor people posting from 10 year old chinkpads do not generate revenue. Companies do not give a single shit about you.

I dont care so much about the size of webpages, although ridiculous, it isn't as bad as the current trend of making absolutely everything a fucking slideshow. What happened to the good old days when you could just read an article rather than having to click through 10 pages sentence by sentence

>>56383933
Because slideshows create more ad views. Holy shit how entitled are you?

I think I can beat these wannabe web devs. My screenshot gallery takes 18 seconds to load, 1688 requests and downloads 24.5MB.

Although 23.7MB of that are images with a cache expiry of 1 year. So maybe I can't beat them after all. Because you kinda expect tons of images if you have a huge gallery of thumbnails.

Modern web-pages are cancer though, they are often really hard to find anything on. Like good luck navigating something like the ASUStek homepage. On my home computer I literally can't access it because it uses flash.

>>56383954
well I get that, but its still fucking ridiculous. Now if I see a webpage that has multiple "next" buttons or arrows or whatever in hopes of tricking you to clicking ads, I just close it. I dont care how interesting or good the article is, I'm not giving them anymore page views or adclicks

>>56383933
>>56383971
The bigger problem in my opinion is the fact that modern webpages have to load so many JavaScript elements that you can have fiber internet and the webpage can still take forever to load. Sometimes it's nice to visit an old website that hasn't really been updated since the early 2000s and have it load completely as soon as I click on it.

>>56384008
Ok. If 20% of people think like you and the rest don't give a fuck and click next 5 times that's a 400% increase in views.

>turn on Firebug, load Wired's homepage: 230kb, 2.7 second load time
>turn off ublock, reload the page: 3.8mb, its still loading shit 30s later
It is a mystery

Screen resolutions past 1920x1080 need large image assets. Doom was 640x480 or less.

>>56382512
Bad developers plain and simple. You can optimize most pages down to about a megabyte.

>>56383364
>725 KB including recaptcha script (over 200 kb) and the puddi gif title (over 100 kb).
By script, do you also include the legacy captcha which any sensible anon would use over the stupid choose all signs image captchas?

>>56384022
Doesnt time spent on the page count for adsense n shit though? Also, why dont content creators get actually relevant ads that their target audience would find useful rather than just going for quality/spammy/phishing ads that people click by accident 99% of the time?

>>56382595
>open a mobile page
>its heavier than the desktop page