Asklemmy

43903 readers

1041 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why do so many mobile versions of sites run worse on phone than desktop versions? (sffa.community)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I swear every mobile site is absolute garbage that runs like ass on phones.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When you're developing a site you have to decide whether to have a completely separate site for mobile (which is generally twice as much work for future site updates) or try to make one layout that adapts to both desktop and mobile (which tends to favor one or the other.)

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's really not that hard to make a single, responsive layout, but these fuckers just love cramming in the most unnecessary bs into their web experience.

And that is what makes it a problem.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The trend when doing web-development since at least 2014 or so is mobile-first responsive design, which is basically as you describe, and it is really not that hard.

You're right - the only reason that any regular website isn't performant is usually because it's chock full of bullshit. Most of the web is unfortunately riddled with a few problems:

library bloat. The vast majority of developers (even outside of just web) will include a giant library for 1-2 functions instead of just writing it themselves. I don't really blame them, most of the incentive for development these days has little to do with building things well, but instead focuses on building them quickly. With web dev in particular, it's extremely common to import a few thousand npm packages from dubious sources.
on the web especially, everything seems to be running 3-4 different tracker networks, ad tech bullshit, anti-adblock stuff, click/scroll/jackers, etc. I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of the regular web, the content is less than half of the actual function of the site.
It's also extremely common in web dev to use some cool kid toolset designed to recreate photoshop on the web to build a blog or whatever.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

JavaScript is incredibly overused, too. Like, you'll visit this simple site, not much going on at first glance, not much to do besides reading the content. And then you look at uBlock Origin, which tells you the site runs 46 scripts.

For what??