Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jakob | Hacker News Reader

Interestingly enough this is one of the websites where deactivating JavaScript results in a much _bigger_ payload (mostly because images are eagerly loaded without JavaScript and lazily with JavaScript activated).

- Bytes transferred without JavaScript: ~2MB

- Bytes transferred with JavaScript: ~600kB

View on HN

> Interestingly enough this is one of the websites where deactivating JavaScript results in a much _bigger_ payload

No. If you have JavaScript on and scroll through the article the page load is 2.8MB.

True, but the driving force of TFA is about the time it takes to get to interactivity. Loading 1.2MB less out of the gate is going to help that significantly.

Please show your working. Downloading >400KB, unpacking it, parsing it, running it is always faster across the board than just downloading the images? Interactivity? Please, I can scroll the page without the images or vast amount of JavaScript being loaded. What gain has interactivity on this article? How does your point related to the fact that there's a vast amount of JS in the page, where the author tells us no to do so.

In what browser does eager image loading interfere with "interactivity"? Let's face it, they know most readers probably don't read/scroll to the end so it saves transfer costs on a decent scale --- which is fair enough.

"Half a megabyte of packed JS" still sounds way overkill for delayed image loading.. =)

I deactivated JS and got a 240KB payload finished in 1.58 s. Chrome 56.0.2924.87 (64-bit)

I scroll through the page and no more data is transferred.

I guess what I'm curious about is how you see images at all since I don't get them unless JS is turned on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com