I don't get this complaint. This site is aimed at developers. I think it's safe to assume they're either not viewing this on mobile ever, or are going to come back and visit on desktop/etc if they actually want to use it as a resource for work, so perf is a low priority compared to the content.
I'm not viewing the website on mobile, and nor did the people I shared it with, but we all were surprised at the slowness. Of course, as you mention, the quality of the content is enough to cover over the performance issues, but it most certainly detracts from the website.
I'm a developer and I just read this whole site on mobile to see if there's anything I don't know. Initial load was clunky, fonts have initially not been showing up but after that it works pretty well on mobile.
Yep wasn't suggesting it wouldn't work fine on mobile, just addressing the 'perf' criticism which to me, isn't really relevant to most devs when they would tend to use that resource on their dev machines.
I nearly closed it when it it loaded this bad and I saw the fonts missing. But scrolled a bit and fonts showed up. So 'perf' criticism is valid because it's so bad on this site that it affected usability for me.
But you didn't close it? So you're not even one negative datapoint. I don't think any rational dev would close a useful developer resource based on perf reasons.
Again, I'm merely replying to the initial comment which was needlessly negative and frankly a tiring trope on HN (rudely criticising something unimportant about the site regardless of its intended use).
Honestly, your going on about it is worse. Sometimes a negative comment just comes out badly. It happens. And even then, taken in good faith, at least it's somewhat constructive. This whole sub-thread of you arguing against people doing exactly that, is off-topic good for nothing ballast. That is a tiring and persistent HN-trope I can really do without.
It's not your exact words, but I don't think it's an unfair characterization, if the excuse is simply that they'll be reading it on a desktop machine anyway.
I took that image from a non-laptop desktop machine, by the way.
Well they could have a list of the properties without them all rendered and then render just the property they need when someone clicks on the property name.
And why should it render all examples on one page?
They could have a static page for every property so one could link to http://cssreference.io/align-content
instead of http://cssreference.io/#align-content
and get just that static page. That should be pretty quick, especially with long caching of all other resources than the actual page content.
There's lots of different ways to have done it without having to do it all at once.
Then someone would have complained that this site needed JavaScript to handle those click event.
Or, would have complained that it was stupid to actually use an anchor tag to link to god forbid another complete page load.
Or, if they used a javascript framework to make deep links someone would have complained that they used a javascript framework for a static page, or even maybe they used the wrong JavaScript framework.
I think it's much better UX to show everything on one page in this case. You're speaking like this is an application, completely disregarding the purpose.
The best solution would be to lazy load. If you can only see the first 3 property on page load, there is no gain in having them all load at the same time.
Disable all the styles. Enable the styles just for the sections that are currently visible.
It would require setting section heights to fixed values so you can know which section is visible and enable and disable styles for them without changing the sites height.
Except that it loads slowly which hurts the usability so it's not really that I prefer a certain layout but more that I prefer the page to load easily.