Acceptable Page Weight?
- Started
- Last post
- 11 Responses
- adev
What do you consider an acceptable page weight for a single page HTML site nowadays?
I saved a site today from work, and one was 1.7MB and another 2.6MB! :/
- ETM0
It's not really that simple. What encompasses the weight, when and how the content is loaded or pulled in etc. are all factors as well.
- mikotondria30
True, etm - getting the important content front and center quickly is more important than a bare weight measurement - think of loading libraries from different domains and various stylesheets and other invisible resources. even 2.6Meg is a tiny fraction of everyone's ram nowadays and loaded right wouldn't take very long on a typical connection. It's the overall performance of the site that's important, weight being a far smaller measure of that than it used to be.
- adev0
No, it doesn't take that long on a normal broadband connection but over 3G on an iPhone you start to notice it.... And when a site is being targeted for both it needs to come into consideration.
- that's why there are mobile versions of sitesdoesnotexist
- maikel0
I'd say no more than 9 stones...
but mikotondria3 had it right
- animatedgif0
"even 2.6Meg is a tiny fraction of everyone's ram nowadays"
This is irrelevant because size on disk does not == size in ram. An extreme example is a 5kb script could use up 4gig of ram and 100% of the processor .
- and a small badly coded flash ad banner can leak RAM faster than you think....vaxorcist
- blackspade0
*it was acceptable in the 80's*
- mekk0
depends on your audience
- detritus0
imho, the bulk of a site page should be beneath 150k, including html js, css and whatever imagery is necessary to create a page's structure.
After that, you need to cater to your audience. Its very easy to assume everyone else is on the same super-fast urban broadband you're on... but that's a mistake if your target user is outwith that bound.
Whatever, just because broadband is out there, it doesn't mean you can simply forget trying to shave KB off your images. Save as high quality as makes an image acceptable - but don't default to 90% quality and then thoughtlessly dump a shitload of images on a page.
For me, design is about trying to work within the constraints of a medium - not pretending they don't exist.
- The old me is balking at a site's basics even weighing as much as 150kb.. that used to be an overall ceiling limit!detritus
- vaxorcist0
300K..... but.... number of files sometimes more important than size of files....
Using one large image with smart CSS sprites and such can decrease loading time over loading 10-50 little images.....
Also Akamai and other local-caching systems can speed things up, and cost a ton... i.e. apple.com
Even server-caching can speed up wordpress sites quite a bit....
- fadein110
database queries are of more concern to me lately - that's whats slowing some of my sites down.