Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



jaclaz

NOT a site issue, but maybe worth some thought

Recommended Posts

Maybe, just maybe, the site is a tadbit fatter that what it might be really-really *needed*, see:

http://httparchive.org/viewsite.php?pageid=29394163

Quote

www.msfn.org/

took 14.2 seconds to load 2540kB of data over 135 requests.

See also:

http://httparchive.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=140701_4_2P4R-l:Jul%201%202014,150719_3_22RZ-l:Jul%2015%202015

Doubled size in one year? :w00t:

We are ALREADY beyond DOOM install size :ph34r: (*random* but IMHO nice reference/unit of measure):

https://twitter.com/xbs/status/626781529054834688

Spoiler

CLLGenwWgAAZAVv.png

 

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one problem of using includes that run on other websites. Never liked the idea. The webpagetest.org looks really good and shows the breakdown fairly well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side note (and though actually "fun" it is a very serious and sad issue :(), Brad Frost put together an extremely nice site to highlight the difference between contents and all the fluff (including the now mandatory "like us on Facebook" :w00t::ph34r:) around it:

http://tinyurl.com/o3qaxpp

such as:

Popups, jargon, junk mail, anti-patterns, sensationalism, begging for likes, tracking scripts, marketing spam, dark patterns, unskippable ads, clickbait, linkbait, listicles, seizure-inducing banners, captchas, QR codes, barely-visible unsubscribe buttons, 24-hour news networks, carousels, auto-playing audio, bloatware, sudden redirects to the App Store, telemarketing, ticked-by-default subscribe buttons, "your call is important to us", pageview-gaming galleries, native advertising, the list of bul***** goes on and on and on.

 

generically grouped under the term bull§hit.

On the mentioned site you can turn it on and off :yes:.

 

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even so, the BS still (apparently) "downloads" to your PC (even though it's "invisible"). :unsure:

Clearing the Cache in FF takes a few until the little red light stops. Then I can shut down the PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/08/2015 at 4:24 AM, submix8c said:

Even so, the BS still (apparently) "downloads" to your PC (even though it's "invisible"). :unsure:

Clearing the Cache in FF takes a few until the little red light stops. Then I can shut down the PC.

Sure, and that is what happens on most sites nowadays.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OT, but not much, what could be a very good idea (if only many people would get the basic "common sense" inside the message, regardless of the "specific new standard"):

https://www.ampproject.org/how-it-works/

Resources must declare their sizing up-front

This brings us to the final topic that makes AMP HTML unique: all resource loading is controlled by the AMP library and, more importantly, resources must declare their sizing up-front. Document authors have to state resource sizes explicitly. This doesn’t mean that resources can’t be responsive – they can be, but their aspect ratio or dimensions needs to be inferable from the HTML alone. This means that after initial layout, an AMP document does not change until user action. An ad at the top of the page can’t suddenly say: “I want to be 200 pixels high instead of 50.” This dramatically reduces jank and prevents users from losing their place in the document. All custom elements are subject to this restriction. Placement on the screen can be reserved while their implementations download asynchronously. This gets us lazy loading with zero visual jank.

 

jaclaz 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the links you collect from the HTTP Archive, the site has slowed down by roughly 8 seconds since 2011.

Given that this site caters to legacy Windows users (in a significant way with the 9x/ME, plus the NT4/2K/2K3 discussion board), I find it amusing (not in the comical or good sense) that the site design keeps being infested with more and more HTML5, JavaSludge and Flush skullduggery that end up alienating a proportion of users who are here because of the "Legacy" forums. 

A lot of modern sites seem to have this 'iOS' theme behind them with weird smooth-scroll features, oversized floating menu-bars and very small areas where the actual information you want is displayed. And I dislike it. Why should it be harder for a system from 2005 to say, watch a Flash video now compared to back then? And why does it need so much more CPU power to stream a simple file when it could be downloaded and played back with minimum overhead (i.e. YouTube). 

Personally, I prefer the older PHPBB "Subsilver" and "Prosilver" themes. They're lightweight, fast-loading and work fine with older browsers. They do everything you need in a far less "bling" interface. They're straight-shooting and NO BS! You don't need a Degree majoring in Arts to figure out what all the little symbols and pictures mean to use them. 

Perhaps I am missing something, but it would be nice if the option was available on this board to revert to an older interface (like on the PHPBB setups) that doesn't carry so much (completely un-necessary) emotional baggage with it. I'm here to read posts, not admire the graphics! :blink:

Bit of a rant, but I understand the premise behind "Death to Bullsh*t." I'm here to read, not to share random forum posts on Twitter, Farcebook, Google-Minus and so on, and so forth and such things. Again, I'm here to read, not look at 2016 "Abstract Forum Design" competitors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On mercoledì 16 marzo 2016 at 6:54 AM, nostaglic98 said:

Bit of a rant, but I understand the premise behind "Death to Bullsh*t." I'm here to read, not to share random forum posts on Twitter, Farcebook, Google-Minus and so on, and so forth and such things. Again, I'm here to read, not look at 2016 "Abstract Forum Design" competitors.

but you see, the above quote now is:

<blockquote class="ipsQuote cke_widget_element" data-ipsquote="" data-ipsquote-timestamp="1458107676" data-ipsquote-userid="351666" data-ipsquote-username="nostaglic98" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" data-ipsquote-contentid="174175" data-ipsquote-contentcommentid="1120646" data-cke-widget-keep-attr="0" data-widget="ipsquote" data-cke-widget-data="%7B%22classes%22%3A%7B%22ipsQuote%22%3A1%7D%7D">
<div class="ipsQuote_citation">
<div class="ipsQuote_contents ipsClearfix cke_widget_editable" contenteditable="true" data-cke-widget-editable="content" data-cke-enter-mode="1">ev
<p>
Bit of a rant, but I understand the premise behind "Death to Bullsh*t." I'm here to read, not to share random forum posts on Twitter, Farcebook, Google-Minus and so on, and so forth and such things. Again, I'm here to read, 
<strong>not</strong>
 look at 2016 "Abstract Forum Design" competitors. 
</p>
<::after>
</div>
</blockquote>

while in the "previous incarnation" of the board software it would have been

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote built" data-author="nostaglic98" data-cid="1120646" data-time="1458107676">
<p>
Bit of a rant, but I understand the premise behind "Death to Bullsh*t." I'm here to read, not to share random forum posts on Twitter, Farcebook, Google-Minus and so on, and so forth and such things. Again, I'm here to read, 
<strong>not</strong>
 look at 2016 "Abstract Forum Design" competitors.
</p>
</blockquote>


 

but really-really the above was a "translation" (BTW bi-directional conversion being evidently possible since the data is exactly the same) of:

[quòte user="nostaglic98" post="1120646" timestamp="1458107676"]
Bit of a rant, but I understand the premise behind "Death to Bullsh*t." I'm here to read, not to share random forum posts on Twitter, Farcebook, Google-Minus and so on, and so forth and such things. Again, I'm here to read, [b]not[/b]look at 2016 "Abstract Forum Design" competitors. 
[/quòte]

It seems to me evident enough the utter importance of the new format, as it gives so much more possibilities - what they are, yet I know not, but they shall be the sellers of the Earth ...

It is not much about 2016 "Abstract Forum Design", it is more about the 2016 "Senselessly Verbose Code Writing Context".

 

jaclaz


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. The question is whether all that will be fully realised in time, or not, or whether its just "senselessly verbose" as you put it.

Turns out using the "old way" of doing things still seems to work (i.e. the world "quote=" encased within '[ ]' followed by [ slash quote])

My other gripe, of course, was using all these glitzy symbols that aren't really easy to use, to imbed images, attach URLs or whatever. 

Edited by nostaglic98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/08/2015 at 0:31 PM, jaclaz said:

Maybe, just maybe, the site is a tadbit fatter that what it might be really-really *needed*, see:

http://httparchive.org/viewsite.php?pageid=29394163

See also:

http://httparchive.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=140701_4_2P4R-l:Jul%201%202014,150719_3_22RZ-l:Jul%2015%202015

Doubled size in one year? :w00t:

We are ALREADY beyond DOOM install size :ph34r: (*random* but IMHO nice reference/unit of measure):

https://twitter.com/xbs/status/626781529054834688

Hidden Content

jaclaz

I get different data.

pagespeed.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a different date, with different board software (and possibly very different home page contents), from a different location and a different browser, what gives? :blink:

A large part of the site loading time (and number of requests, and actual content) is highly dynamic AFAICU, for *some* reason the given site monitored a very large (and thus slow) site on Dec 1, 2015:

Quote

took 21.3 seconds to load 3400kB of data over 339 requests.

http://httparchive.org/viewsite.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msfn.org%2F&l=Dec%201%202015

and a much smaller (and thus faster) site on Dec 15, 2015:

Quote

took 15 seconds to load 2281kB of data over 162 requests.

http://httparchive.org/viewsite.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msfn.org%2F&l=Dec%2015%202015

Comparison:
http://httparchive.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=151201_5_34S9-l:Dec%201%202015,151215_5_3860-l:Dec%2015%202015

jaclaz
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jaclaz said:

On a different date, with different board software (and possibly very different home page contents), from a different location and a different browser, what gives?

Whatever.
@jaclaz, i want to ask you why is ther so much empty space in your posts?

empty spice.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, xper said:

Whatever.
@jaclaz, i want to ask you why is ther so much empty space in your posts?

Well, you already know the reason, but since you won't actually like it, let's say that it is my fault in being extremely stubborn in using Opera (Presto) accessing the board and - sometimes - not being completely and fully attentive in removing the artifacts created by Opera or by my careless typing.
Removed excessive space in previous post.
 

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum now causes Opera 9.25 to crash instantly :( With Opera 11.64 I could not click the "I agree" button to sign in :(

I guess this is where we part ways. Sayonara.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ihateusernames said:

This forum now causes Opera 9.25 to crash instantly :( With Opera 11.64 I could not click the "I agree" button to sign in :(

I guess this is where we part ways. Sayonara.

Tested with Opera 36. Everything works perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×