When your client complains there site is slow and you find that they have added 80 full resolution images at 6000x4000 pixels to the home page!

Been there. I don't remember the exact words, but their justification was for the website to create the best impression of the company, by using the best images possible. In other words, higher resolution images=mo betta! And this was also in the dialup days, it took about 10 minutes for the page to load all the images, and the images ended up looking jaggy due to IE (hey, this was a long time ago!) using point sampling to scale down the images.

I don't quite understand how a page that takes 10 minutes to load images that look rubbish creates a good impression of the company, but I wasn't the one studying for an MBA...

Why wouldn't your cms take care of that? Clients are as thick as shit, keep that in your mind always and you'll never be surprised or disappointed!

Made a website for an artist/photographer. A few photos you say, try 100+ (most of them in a gallery, where I've added lazy load, but still... >.<)

@helloworld in my case, that was one of the requirements, I couldn't talk her out of.

@pascalwacker I mean, showing some lower resolution images and then loading the full one on inspection wasn't possible?

@SirWindfield yeah, you could have done it just for her ip address 😂

I've honestly never seen a page speed score that low, incredible achievement 👏 👏

And I am like:
If GitHub does not care, why should I?

@SirWindfield would have been possible, I even suggested resizing it and or initial load a smaller resolution and told her, that big fucking pictures will slow it down. But apperently it's very importent to "get" the art, that a image is exactly displayed, as cropped and that she will take care, that the pictures are not to big... Guess what happend :P

Wat...

Youtube.com has 53/100