- https://www.webpagetest.org/ (322kB)
- https://gutenberg.org/ (298kB)
- https://archive.org/ (441kB) [chained JS modules means it's still slow however]
Any others?
Thank you for the wonderful service & documentation. I wasn’t looking forward to setting up monitoring but your service actually made it a pleasure!
It's MS Paint from Windows XP, ~700 KB in size in a single HTML file. Source code available here: https://github.com/assemblylanguage/xp-paint
Also glad you like humble, it's one of those side projects I get a lot of enjoyment out of developing and that I can get pretty creative with. You can do some interesting optimizations and modifications when the entire state of a web page is known in advance, and it's fun to look at some of these edge cases.
As a news site Rest of World is fast loading but because of lead image it can exceed 500KB in size depending on article.
You want that, but most sites where people just read are big in many MBs. They are slow. That's the point, not sites doing stuff.
Yeah... 512 KB is a lot of bytes for text-only website. For text-only sites the threshold should be much lower. Like ten times lower. 50 KB club anyone?
I agree. I still think the website with one of the highest content-to-form ratio is gnu.org:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It makes the reader mode unnecessary - as opposed to the old version that wasn't split into columns so reading was slower:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070311064322/https://www.gnu.or...
It feels rather... pointless? to pick on a news organization's homepage for being bloated, and then gesture at some guy's 9kB portfolio saying "see! this is speed!"
The Nytimes website with the exact same look and functionality could be well under 1MB easily.
It feels like the list is pointless, it’s saying “small sites are small” - instead of showcasing well-optimized sites that you would expect to be quite large.
Here’s my submission to usurp first place: