This is getting a bit out of control. I'd like stringent requirements for content/size ratio. I could put up a bare html page and claim membership to this so called elite club!?<p>We can do better and set the standards high.
One of the worst things you can do to your web re responsivity is: ads. Bloated ads downloaded from overloaded ad servers may take ten times as much bandwidth and time than whatever the visitors came to see.<p>The whole model of having content free but showing ads to visitors has many problems and this is one of them. Substack-like models seem to address this.
I feel like there was a missed opportunity for the '250kb.club' site itself to be hundreds of megabytes filled with react dev dependencies and other useless things.
Oh, your all text no image blog doesn't exceed 250kb?! No way!! \s<p>Some websites rely on images, they could never really be under 250kb. And in my experience the download size doesn't matter. What matters is the usability of the website. Something Google tries to capture with their new metrics for pagespeed. If the website is optimized nicely (e.g. lazyloading) I can use the website in under a second while it will continues to load stuff as I use it.
I agree with the idea. I've expressed my fanatical hatred towards the modern web. And I'm not sure when or how it happened. Every website I open comes with a "compressed" javascript which is several megabytes. And yes, having a good internet is a given in my case and it has nothing to do with that. Truthfully I have no issues with images on the web that are several megabytes. A good comparison in my view is the nautical mile vs statute mile: they are both called "miles" and they both measure distance, but this is where the similarities end. All that javascript(regardless of which "modern framework" we are talking about) eats your CPU time for the sake of flashiness and makes no real contribution. All the spinners and preloaders these days have less to do with transitioning effects and more to do with hiding the bloat that the web has become. I'd be much happier to see a blank screen for 20 milliseconds and fully rendered content a few milliseconds later, rather than a grey page, with 20 different empty containers, filled with preloaders and waiting for 10 seconds for each of them to load, while that eats up one of the cores of my CPU. While I abhor javascript as a language, I don't mind it's usage to some minimal extent but at this point, if you are using anything less than an 8-th gen i7 with at least 8gb of ram, the web is pretty much unusable. That is absurd considering that the web, by design, was meant to be a simple and fast way of transferring documents. Hence the reason why I ended up making this[1]. Now that I opened it, I realize that I've messed up the favicon and it's larger than the rest of the content. Apart from that, this does serve the purpose of <250kb with moderate interactivity...<p>[1] <a href="https://rorigami.site/" rel="nofollow">https://rorigami.site/</a>
Question about these sites: are they 250 KB for the <i>entire site</i> (that is: all the pages, images, assets combined) or 250 KB for just the site’s homepage? Because the former basically rules out any blog with enough content or a couple of images, and the latter seems almost trivial to achieve, maybe even if you have a picture of some sort on that page…
The top site ironically abuses the standards. It entirely omits the HTML doctype, head, body tags. They can do it because browsers are correcting developer errors, but is this something that should be advised to save a few bytes?<p>(no)
Creating things within size limitations is cool, but it's entirely possible to create a bloated website experience within the 250kb or 1MB limit.<p>I think there's more to "bloat" than file-size!