[chebum]

Artsy.net home page weighs 5.2Mb compressed. Less than 20% of that is JavaScript that is fully cached between page views. Let's suppose average visitor will watch 3 pages on average visit. He'll consume 800Kb of JavaScript and 12Mb of images. Most likely, next visit visitor browser won't download any JS at all. If people are OK browsing so image-rich website on their phones, developers shouldn't bother about 140Kb of Ember.JS if it helps them deliver app faster. JavaScript is less than 10% even for the first time visitor.

[buster]

I don't know artsy.net, it's probably image heavy. But an average webpage size of over 1.5MB is not acceptable onmobile, imo: http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/average-web-p... Also: http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/11/21/web-pages-getting-bloate... It's far more then it should be. Graphics can be size optimized, SVG or jpg. A JS framework doesn't need to be 100k where most webpages are probably only using a small subset of functionality. And i also don't want to download a gazillion other JS files for web tracking and such things. Ever download on a high latency connection hurts.