
Digital Guide to Low Tech - vanderZwan
http://gauthierroussilhe.com/en/posts/convert-low-tech
======
rob74
Dithering a photo (which probably was a JPEG) so it looks like a GIF and then
saving it as PNG may be a good way to make it look "low-tech", but I somehow
doubt that it's really the most efficient way to serve images to your users?

~~~
vanderZwan
Yeah, that was a big point of contention when Low Tech Magazine unveiled their
new website[0]. I even did some research myself - see comment 23 underneath
that article and this[1] link.

From what I understand of their response, LTM also made an _aesthetic_ choice
to make the images more striking in their old-school look. They chose the look
to draw attention to the images themselves. While I think that's fine for Low
Tech Magazine, I'm not sure if I agree with that becoming the most generalized
result.

[0]
[https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about.html](https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about.html)

[1] [https://blindedcyclops.neocities.org/low-tech-image-
tests/ga...](https://blindedcyclops.neocities.org/low-tech-image-
tests/gallery.html)

------
ximm
The text mentions that kirby was open source, but it actually is not:

[https://getkirby.com/license](https://getkirby.com/license)

(I really like tha approach of kirby though)

~~~
jamesgeck0
Kirby is open source with a restrictive license.
[https://github.com/getkirby/kirby](https://github.com/getkirby/kirby)

Situations like this are why the FSF makes a big deal about distinguishing
between the terms "open source" and "free software."

~~~
dublinben
Open Source has a definition[0], which this doesn't fit. The definitions of
Open Source and Free Software are actually remarkably similar, and they
significantly overlap.

Software like this is known as "source available" because you can read it, but
you're not allowed to use it freely.

[0] [https://opensource.org/osd](https://opensource.org/osd)

------
philipkglass
If you want a _conspicuously_ "Low Tech" design aesthetic, follow this guide's
steps in imitation of
[https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/](https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/).

If you want to make a web site that loads and renders quickly even over slow
network connections and on low-resource hardware -- ostensibly the goal of the
Low Tech solar website and of this derivative site -- there are better
examples to imitate that don't mention carbon dioxide at all.

These sites' main offense against efficiency is the use of small-palette
indexed images with heavy dithering. Dithering impairs efficient image
compression. Many of the images on this page and on the solar Low Tech site
would be more efficiently represented as non-dithered indexed images, perhaps
using a larger palette to compensate for the lack of dithering. That's what
should have been done with all the charts and text-heavy screenshots. They
would look more like the source image and require fewer bytes for storage and
network transfer. As it is, this "low tech" page loads 380 kB of PNG images.
It's especially egregious when the source image is obviously a continuous-tone
photograph, like the image at the top of the article. It should have stayed as
a JPEG.

I'm reminded of Intel's environmentally dubious installation of wind micro-
turbines on the roof of one of its campuses a few years ago:

[https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/21/intel-catches-the-
win...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/21/intel-catches-the-wind-with-
rooftop-micro-turbine-array/)

In 2015 small wind turbines were already known to generate far less energy per
dollar and per unit area than small solar arrays. Intel didn't need another
experiment to determine if small wind is better than small solar. The rooftop
already had a small solar array. Why didn't they just add more rooftop solar?

The answer is in the photographs about the turbine project: the small turbines
stick up over the edge of the roof and would be _visible_ from the ground. The
superior solar array is _not_ visible from the ground. The superior option is
an invisible commitment to environmental considerations; the inferior option
is a visible commitment.

Low Tech magazine (and now its imitators) are embracing a technically and
environmentally suboptimal web design approach to ensure that you see their
environmental commitments all the way from the parking lot.

[https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g33046-d...](https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g33046-d102391-i137362203-Intel_Corp_and_Museum-
Santa_Clara_California.html)

~~~
benj111
VanderZwan has a link to various compression options in another subthread [1].

To be fair to lowtech magazine, the author does walk the walk, their office
setup is powered off solar panels perched on the window ledges [2].

So I would hesitate to say it was green washing, rather than than just not
finding the best compression technique.

[1] [https://blindedcyclops.neocities.org/low-tech-image-
tests/ga...](https://blindedcyclops.neocities.org/low-tech-image-
tests/gallery.html)

[2] [https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2016/05/how-to-go-off-
grid-i...](https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2016/05/how-to-go-off-grid-in-your-
apartment.html)

~~~
philipkglass
I wouldn't denigrate Intel or Low Tech Magazine as greenwashers. They have put
more resources into actual environmental efficiency than into advertising
their efficiency. But they have both made _some_ decisions that prioritize
conspicuousness over effectiveness.

I find it at least a bit difficult to believe that either Low Tech Magazine or
Gauthier Roussilhe simply don't know any better about optimizing images for
compactness at this point. Surely someone has tweeted advice to them even if
they didn't originally know. Maybe that's my own failure of imagination.

~~~
DrOctagon
I view Low Tech Magazine's website as a thought experiment (even art) rather
than a pure engineering endeavor.

They do ask for feedback on improving the energy efficiency of the website but
viewing it only as a series of optimisations is a very narrow view. The
broader context is much more interesting.

------
benj111
Compressing the entire page wasn't mentioned.

That should be possible at 500kb uncompressed data, without delays being
noticeable.

I suppose then you would need to calculate the power cost that that would
impose on the client.

