Light version of the forum

[thekeemo]

Some people don't have the greatest internet.

Why not make it easier for them to use the site?

[Starelementpoke]

2 minutes ago, thekeemo said:

Some people don't have the greatest internet.

Why not make it easier for them to use the site?

So, the old forum?

[TheGrim123321]

Wasn't there a html base version on the old fourm that was similar to the gmail old version?

[No]

yeah true

i have shit internet on vacation and things are tedious sometimes

[thekeemo]

6 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

So, the old forum?

Even more so

Like bare html

[TheGrim123321]

4 minutes ago, thekeemo said:

Even more so

Like bare html

Go into inspect element and start deleting the .css in the head tag

[thekeemo]

1 minute ago, TheGrim123321 said:

Go into inspect element and start deleting the .css in the head tag

More importantly is the ajax and js which would break the site. CSS is actually not that heavy at all.

[TheGrim123321]

1 minute ago, thekeemo said:

More importantly is the ajax and js which would break the site. CSS is actually not that heavy at all.

Fuck it just delete everything in the inspect element that way you have to load nothing. I know I'm a genius you don't have to tell me.

[handymanshandle]

Making the mobile version lighter on bandwidth wouldn't be too bad if it could retain the UI and UX of the current mobile forum.

[Gaged]

33 minutes ago, thekeemo said:

Some people don't have the greatest internet.

Why not make it easier for them to use the site?

Solution:

 

[colonel_mortis]

In loading this page, about 31 kB were transferred over the network (for the actual HTML - all the JS and CSS is cached, as are most images). Even with dialup, it would take less than a second to load the page (obviously more with network latency and server response time taken into account, but reducing the page weight won't change that), assuming you have a primed cache.

[thekeemo]

40 minutes ago, colonel_mortis said:

In loading this page, about 31 kB were transferred over the network (for the actual HTML - all the JS and CSS is cached, as are most images). Even with dialup, it would take less than a second to load the page (obviously more with network latency and server response time taken into account, but reducing the page weight won't change that), assuming you have a primed cache.

30-45 seconds for threads

1-2 minutes for notification menu and statuses...

[colonel_mortis]

1 minute ago, thekeemo said:

30-45 seconds for threads

1-2 minutes for notification menu and statuses...

Simulating modem speeds, notifications still only take about 6 seconds, and loading a thread takes about 50s, though in reality times will differ because you will have a higher throughput but more packet loss and higher latencies. That is slow, I agree.

However, we are limited in what we can remove anyway, and the data is already compressed in transmission, so we wouldn't be able to have a major effect on load times without making the site completely bare and unusable, and it would require a lot of work, which we don't have the time or resources to do given how limited the usage would end up being.