Average Web Page Size Triples Since 2003

Andy King writes "Within the last five years, the size of the average web page has more than tripled, and the number of external objects has nearly doubled. While broadband users have experienced somewhat faster response times, narrowband users have been left behind." The article breaks down a number of changes besides just page size, including image types and video duration.

While we're at it...

[Oxy the moron]

... let's note how they've grown in screen size, too! I mean, back in the day, it used to be good enough to have a monitor that could display 640x480. Now, if you're using a 14" CRT, you're totally out of luck when viewing the intarwebs!

Ahem... honestly, I agree that "narrowband users have been left behind," but so have those with smaller monitors, older operating systems, and the like. Sometimes upgrading the hardware/software is just a necessity at some point. If you can't, chances are there's a library nearby that has some newer hardware that might work.

Would it be better if we went back to having a high content/low content index page so the user could pick which one they wanted? Maybe... but I don't think it's necessary, and it usually involves a lot more work.

Video probably prime reason...

[TripMaster Monkey]

How many web pages had embedded video as a matter of course in 2003?

It seems to me that embedded video alone could account for at least half of this increase.

Re:Check out the size of the /. front page.

[gnick]

Internet access gets faster -> Web sites get bigger
Hard drives get bigger -> Applications use more space
Media storage increases -> Home videos get larger and quality improves
CPUs get faster -> Windows programmers add "features" and chow down on cycles
Fish bowls get larger -> Goldfish grow ...

Some good, some bad, some ugly. But not shocking.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Fight: Text blasts bloat

[redelm]

Ok, so I'm a little retro. I've just [reluctantly] upgraded from lynx to link to get tables and table layout.

Everything still runs pretty fast, certainly much faster than those few occasions when I need graphics or https: and run Firefox. The difference is noticable on all machines, and greatest (~2x) on the slower ones.

Sometimes formatting gets messed up, but the main content is still in text and still very readable.

Re:While we're at it...

[Hatta]

Would it be better if we went back to having a high content/low content index page so the user could pick which one they wanted?

Of course not. People shouldn't be specifiying the width for their columns in absolute terms in the first place. Use relative measures and let the browser decide where everything goes. At least that way your site degrades gracefully if the browser doesn't meet your expectations.

Well written HTML + CSS should be completely device independent. It should be fully navigable on a 1600x1400 monitor, a 320x240 cell phone, or a line by line screen reader. And it should be completely transparent to the user. We have the technology, designers just need to use it.

Narrowband?

[XorNand]

Ugh, I hate it when people describe dial-up as "narrowband" in an attempt to sound more technical. The term "broadband" is used to describe the signal encoding, not bandwidth. Therefore the converse of "broadband is "baseband," not narrowband. The opposite of narrowband is "wideband", and refers to something else. Um, k? Glad we have that all cleared up.

Re:Times change

[LordLucless]

Dynamic HTML generally doesn't take up much more bandwidth than normal HTML - a couple of extra bytes for a few CSS rules and a few lines of javascript. It makes pages feel slow and clunky because it makes the browser work harder, not because its straining your bandwidth.

Flash too, despite the bad rep it gets here can (I stress, can be fairly small in size.

The reason these things feel clunky isn't because they're big and slow, it's because they're, well, clunky.

Re:While we're at it...

[LordLucless]

No, not really. If you want a 600px header image, then no amount of CSS is going to make that fit nicely on a cell phone. You're going to have to create a different design for the mobile device. I agree that CSS should be used more often, and should be used to give browsers render hints rather than force a behaviour to a specific layout, but it's not a panacea.

Why can't they just say

[iminplaya]

Advertising on the web has tripled over the last five years? It's most definitely what's clogging the pipes...er, tubes.

Re:You know what they say

[jellomizer]

I don't know what all you other guys are browsing. I never really found legit sites that rather taistful about their adds. I have seen less adds/webpage from 2003-2008 not more. I also don't freak out everytime I see an add either. Most people who make a living of add supported websites normally are not multi-millionares. They may make an average living with their site and adds are the primary revenue and these people work full time to keep the site up to date.

Usually when sites go Add Crazy they do not last long because there is to much adds and prevents repeat visits, so they go away because they cannot make proper money from it.

Also back in the early 2000's flash wasn't used for most of the adds but animated GIFs and Flash is much more efficent then animated GIFs. So you are actually saving bandwith.

Think of the alternatives to adds. Having to Pay for directly out of own pocket for access to a web site. Web sites collecting information about you and selling them to spammers. Web sites that are a labor of love and will get updated every year if you are luckly and could go down any day.

Like it or not Web Banner Adds are actually the best happy medium that we have come up with that keep most websites running. Some websites such as HomeStarrunner.com make their mony selling swag but that may not be as profitable for other sites.