The importance of size was pointed out by Gerhard in http://drupal.org/node/916622#comment-3472340
While measuring I find that:
current home page when saved in firefox : 222 kbs ( Win XP)
redesign home page when saved in firefox : 365 kbs ( Win XP)
The front page is always best if it is kept as light as possible. This is a proven fact.
If we cannot make the new homepage equal or lighter we should not make it heavier by almost 150 kbs.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #5 | totalweight_drupal-org-169_redesign-411_wordpress-62.gif | 43.11 KB | kaakuu |
| #3 | comparison-of-sizes-2.gif | 7.86 KB | kaakuu |
| #1 | heavy-sized-redesign-home.gif | 28.81 KB | kaakuu |
Comments
Comment #1
kaakuu commentedSize on disk is even heavier, for example for those who saves file in mobile, netbook etc
The redesign page is more than 1 mb heavier than the current page - please see attachment.
However, it may not matter but the sizes mentioned in the opening post matter still.
Comment #2
drummTime spent loading is the most important metric. Download size is a component of it, but it is not that simple.
1. Size on disk is not the same as transferred over the wire. You must use tools like Firebug or Google Chrome's developer tools.
2. If you are logged in, the query log may be on. We are using this to improve the server's time to send the first byte. It takes up some space.
3. Since we are actively doing theme development, CSS aggregation is off. This will save some size and, more importantly, HTTP requests.
4. Even before turning on CSS aggregation, we already have fewer HTTP requests.
5. Time to render CSS and execute JS is important too.
6. This is running on a small VM for testing, not our production infrastructure.
We are arranging to set up a test site on our production infrastructure that will produce valid test results for all phases of the page load. We need to be using valid metrics for the right things.
Comment #3
kaakuu commentedThanks. I know about [1. Size on disk] which I already told above.
A page that is 140kB+ more than a page will take longer to make full appearance on the screen to the end-user.
365 kBs is the redesign homepage size - probably some 50 to 60 kBs (correct me if I am wrong) can be shed off by all those technicalities you have detailed. It will still be 300kB+ which is heavy for a front page (for a CMS at least) acc. to principles of usability and good web design.
That apart even the image file load is much higher in the redesign home, somewhat nearing double the size than we currently have. What is the plan on reducing these?
The attachment shows the total image load in the redesign and current home.
Comment #4
drummPlease use a tool that will provide valid and useful results:
http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow/help/views.html#components_view
http://getfirebug.com/wiki/index.php/Net_Panel
http://www.chromium.org/devtools/google-chrome-developer-tools-tutorial#...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg130952(VS.85).aspx
Comment #5
kaakuu commentedIrrespective of all factors a page that is finally larger in total kBs will take longer to load in full for the end-user. Gerhard in http://drupal.org/node/916622#comment-3472340 said redesign is less in kBs, which it is not. This is also confirmed by Yslow as advised by Drumm above as well as other tools.
I understand that redesign page will shrink its kBs by various valid techniques but how that will shrink the image load? How much the optimizing techniques can reduce the total weight ? 50 kB, 60 kB, 100 kB? It will still be 300 kB+ - much heavier than a good and usable design asks for.
YSlow results, just taken, are shown in the attachment. Total weights are
current drupal.org homepage - 169 K
redesign drupal homepage - 411 K
wordpress homepage - 62 K
Design Guidelines emphatically said the following almost 2 years ago, and throughout various iterations and various scattered places the redesign took place, users were assured that will take place. It is not just a flimsy request being made at the last moment.
Comment #6
gerhard killesreiter commentedSo, ok, I apparently was wrong here. I looked at the websites while in Copenhagen and at that time the new homepage was indeed smaller than the current one.
There are probably two factors involved:
1) Probably some stuff that was still missing was added to the redesign.
2) The size of the current d.o homepage depends on how many images are in the 5 featured articles.
Currently, only 3 out of 5 articles have images and I get about 170 kB in yslow. If I go 3 pages back I am at 270 kB, if I go 5 pages back 130 kB, 9 pages back 190 kB, 20 pages back I am at 600 kB (!).
So, in most cases the new homepage will be heavier.
This is however not the only criterion for a performant homepage. Another important issue is the number of items that you need to download. The new hp has 19 components while the current one has 40 and more. This is a very significant improvement and should improve user experience quite a bit.
I am changing this from "bug" to "task" and I have changed the title to something that is actually actionable.
Feel free to share additional observations wrt performance.
Comment #7
kaakuu commentedThanks for changing the title and thanks for changing from "closed-won't fix" to "active"
Reducing the number of components loading in page is good but unless the total, total size of the page is less than 100 -150kB it is not very good for the end-user, neither upto the principles of good webdesign for such a site. Wordpress homepage keeps everything under 62K. Agreed that size is not all or the only criteria but it appears now that it is indeed an important criteria to be left out according to the Design Principles insisted upon two years ago and assured that new page will be adherent to this.
While the internal number of components may have been reduced by "us" ( the designers ) to the "end-users" it is a clutter of information and way too many components to digest w.r.t a homepage. The number of visible components have gone up drastically.
Comment #8
gerhard killesreiter commented100-150kB is pretty small, you will not find many current websites which are able to get into that bracket.
Wordpress.org is indeed very small (and also low on content), but .com is at 360kB, joomla.org has 260 kB, modxcmx.com has 270 kB.
I agree that the numkber of visible components has gone up. I believe this to be intentional. Whether you (or I) agree with this is pretty irrelevant.
Comment #9
kaakuu commentedSo wordpress is 62kb whereas joomla is 260 kB and modcmx is 270 kB - still they are 100 kb+ less than the current redesign at 411 kB
Any documentation or reference of that "intention"? This document is on the contrary.
Comment #10
nnewton commentedThe redesign homepage is still under development and thus is not having any of its js/css aggregated, minified or compressed. Frontend performance is on the agenda, but atm is nowhere near my top priority. As anyone who has launched a large site can attest, the first launch tends to not be ideal for frontend performance, as other aspects of performance are far far more important for an initial launch. This will be addressed at a later date, but at the moment the numbers here are not accurate.
I'm marking this as postponed and will re-active when we get to frontend testing.
-N
Comment #11
kaakuu commented@nnewton
Please read the last para of #3 and second para of #5 in italics above. Thanks.
Comment #12
nnewton commentedRe-activating this.
Comment #13
nnewton commentedLogged in drupal.org front page: 214.4KB - 1.28 second load/transfer time - YSlow Grade C
Logged in beta.drupal.org front page: 144.2KB - 1.17 second load/transfer time - YSlow Grade B
Continuing to monitor the performance of the front page, but am going to close this and open up individual issues for anything found.