Great quote post for May 9, 2020, although the comment is from a few days ago.

Hacker News thread titled "Web Vitals: essential metrics for a healthy site" that pointed to something, whatever, doesn't matter. I was more interested in this comment with my emphasis added.

Ironically, the page took more than a minute until first paint on an old iPad. (I even restarted the poor thing, thinking the HTTP stack had somehow died.) Please, mind that not everything is evergreen and that there's not much reason from a user's perspective to put perfectly working equipment to scrap just because devs decide to go with newest standards only. (Think green computing, which includes electronics waste. This also works both ways: a robust implementation is more likely to work in a few years from now on a then newer, probably much different browser engine.)

I used to think that eco-shaming horribly bloated websites was a joke, but I don't think that any longer. Modern web design is environmentally unfriendly when it's used for websites meant for browsing-only users on the public internet.

If it's a web application meant to be used by employees within a company, then who cares how it functions? Obviously, the employees want a useful tool.

But this abomination ( is not worthy of being made into a link. The Toledo Blade website should be ridiculed for being environmentally unfriendly. The Toledo Blade website contributes to global warming by making computers work harder, draining batteries faster, and forcing users to consume more electricity that may not be provided by green energy.

Hardware, operating systems, and even web browsers should not be obsoleted by a web page that is meant to be READ by BROWSING-ONLY users.

Related posts: