You do realize sometimes it's okay to have a page larger than, say, 50kb. Right? The gifs were a great way to show the exact issues she was discussing and they take up the bulk of that space. So why is that a bad thing in any way?
Yes web pages should, ideally, be small but that doesn't mean the media they show to the user has to be small as well.
The article's point is that all text not rendering cripples a page. Not seeing a specific image for a while, especially one that's relatively optional, is fine.
> 50KB isn't anywhere near 1.2MB. Did you mean 500KB?
It was a random number less than 1.2MB. So no I did not mean 500KB. In fact without media 50KB is a little site for a site IMO.
> The blog post specifically mentioned an experience on a 2g connection, and the bloat associated with webfonts.
Correct but media is always large. That's like YouTube having a blinking font issue so they fix it but people complain that the videos are still large.
>at its heart this is still the werkkzeug3/kkrieger engine, except with a new(*) lighting/material system.
And how many hours went into creating something like that? Do you think people would pay for the equivalent amount of hours for websites to be crafted like that?
Well webfonts, the thing she was complaining about, can often be far less than a MB, what with weights being a few hundred KB each. If I'm reading a long form article, I'd rather have them choose a nice, unique typeface for me to read (given the amount of copy on sites like Nautilus, nplusone, Intercept, Aeon, etc. which can amount to 90% of a page) and either lose the unnecessary javascript or slim down the media.
Yes web pages should, ideally, be small but that doesn't mean the media they show to the user has to be small as well.