Eco-friendly on the web?
Lightening a site isn't enough to make it green. Discover which usages, content, and technical choices to review for real progress without false promises.
Sur cette page4 sections
You go to look up a restaurant's opening hours and your phone ends up running a 3D scene, a background video, and effects that follow your every move. All this just to find out the restaurant is closed on Mondays. Personally, I feel a bit like we're killing penguins just to display a timetable.
The image is intentionally excessive, of course. But the discrepancy really annoys me: we sometimes deploy an impressive amount of technology just to make simple information harder to obtain.
And if the result only works correctly on the latest iPhone or a mandatory recent computer, I think we've missed something. A visitor shouldn't have to upgrade their hardware just to have the right to read our site.
On the other hand, making someone wait through an animated intro before letting them access a form is a different story. We might have succeeded in a technical demonstration, but not necessarily in creating a good site for that person.
For me, the interesting question is quite direct: if we remove this effect, what does the visitor lose? If the answer is just "it looks less impressive," we can at least discuss the space we give it. An optional animation that doesn't block content is already a different kind of compromise.
Yet these are ordinary situations. If the menu responds with a delay or the page becomes a chore to scroll, the person doesn't think our animation is ambitious. They look for information, they wait, and then they leave.
That's why hardware lifespan also counts in eco-design. The general framework for the eco-design of digital services takes equipment and usage into account, not just the server. A site that remains usable on a less powerful device is a step in the right direction; a green leaf in the footer doesn't fix a lagging menu.
Same for video: does it actually explain the service, or is it just running behind text that no one can read? The answer completely changes the work to be done.
We can keep beautiful images, a visual identity, and pleasant interactions while making better choices about what we load and when. The cache can also avoid repeat downloads. But before the technical tweaks, I like to understand why each element is there.
To overhaul a site, we can start very simply: open important pages on an older device, see what loads, and try to do what a customer would do. Find a time. Choose a service. Send a request.
If all that works better after our intervention, with fewer useless resources, we've already done concrete work. And we can keep the effects that truly add value, rather than asking the phone to suffer just to prove we can do 3D.
The image is intentionally excessive, of course. But the discrepancy really annoys me: we sometimes deploy an impressive amount of technology just to make simple information harder to obtain.
And if the result only works correctly on the latest iPhone or a mandatory recent computer, I think we've missed something. A visitor shouldn't have to upgrade their hardware just to have the right to read our site.
3D can be useful without becoming mandatory
I have nothing against a well-made animation. Rotating an object to understand its shape, showing how a part is assembled, or offering a true interactive experience can provide much more than a photo.On the other hand, making someone wait through an animated intro before letting them access a form is a different story. We might have succeeded in a technical demonstration, but not necessarily in creating a good site for that person.
For me, the interesting question is quite direct: if we remove this effect, what does the visitor lose? If the answer is just "it looks less impressive," we can at least discuss the space we give it. An optional animation that doesn't block content is already a different kind of compromise.
Your computer doesn't look like everyone else's
When you create a site on a powerful machine with a good connection, it's easy to forget everything else. The phone that's a few years old, the poor signal on a train, the laptop still in use because it works perfectly fine for daily work.Yet these are ordinary situations. If the menu responds with a delay or the page becomes a chore to scroll, the person doesn't think our animation is ambitious. They look for information, they wait, and then they leave.
That's why hardware lifespan also counts in eco-design. The general framework for the eco-design of digital services takes equipment and usage into account, not just the server. A site that remains usable on a less powerful device is a step in the right direction; a green leaf in the footer doesn't fix a lagging menu.
You can lighten a site without making it dull
Take a shop: photos allow you to see the product, its details, its texture. Making them tiny or unreadable to save a few bytes won't help anyone. However, sending a huge image just to display it in a small thumbnail means transporting something that isn't being used.Same for video: does it actually explain the service, or is it just running behind text that no one can read? The answer completely changes the work to be done.
We can keep beautiful images, a visual identity, and pleasant interactions while making better choices about what we load and when. The cache can also avoid repeat downloads. But before the technical tweaks, I like to understand why each element is there.
Penguins aren't counted with a stopwatch
A page that loads faster is a visible improvement. Deducing a precise number of grams of CO₂ saved is another matter, requiring a serious methodology and scope. I prefer to show you what we've actually changed rather than turning every optimisation into an ecological certificate.To overhaul a site, we can start very simply: open important pages on an older device, see what loads, and try to do what a customer would do. Find a time. Choose a service. Send a request.
If all that works better after our intervention, with fewer useless resources, we've already done concrete work. And we can keep the effects that truly add value, rather than asking the phone to suffer just to prove we can do 3D.
