8 ms·
I would expect a site about CSS properties to also know about the performance impacts of paints... Takes a good 5s for everything to load.
by rohannair 10y ago
I would expect a site about CSS properties to also know about the performance impacts of paints... Takes a good 5s for everything to load.
- Kiro 10y agoHow would they fix that? It's rendering all the examples on one page (like it should) so I understand it takes a long time.
- rohannair 10y ago> like it should No it shouldn't. Split up large chunks if it impacts performance.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Kiro 10y agoI think it's much better UX to show everything on one page in this case. You're speaking like this is an application, completely disregarding the purpose.
- Raphmedia 10y agoThe best solution would be to lazy load. If you can only see the first 3 property on page load, there is no gain in having them all load at the same time.
- dom0 10y agoNo it wouldn't, because this means additional delays for anyone that is actually using the site.
- Raphmedia 10y agoLazy loading done well is invisible for the user. You preload things as users scroll down and when user hover / click on one of the anchors.
- mschuster91 10y agoThat doesn't work for those ctrl+f'ing for a specific property. I'd probably do a full load for the text, with specifying the height for the examples inline, and then lazy-render the examples once they're visible.
- Raphmedia 10y agoYou would still need all the text to be in the markup for SEO purposes anyway.
- scotty79 10y agoYou could have all content just unstyled (apart from sections heights) and enable the style for each section as it comes into view. The problem with this site is not that it has too much context. Just too much new and crazy styles.
- flukus 10y agoLike how wikipedia does it? Full content but mostly collapsed.
- jklinger410 10y agoThe page almost crashed my browser and made me not want to use it. Very lazy on the part of the developer to code it that way.
- Kiro 10y agoHow would you do it and still view all the properties on one page?
- jklinger410 10y agoI wouldn't have the properties on one page.
- Kiro 10y agoThen it's more a matter of taste than laziness. I very much prefer to have them all on a single page.
- jklinger410 10y agoExcept that it loads slowly which hurts the usability so it's not really that I prefer a certain layout but more that I prefer the page to load easily.
- scotty79 10y agoDisable all the styles. Enable the styles just for the sections that are currently visible. It would require setting section heights to fixed values so you can know which section is visible and enable and disable styles for them without changing the sites height.
- CamperBob2 10y agoThe page almost crashed my browser Thanks for the report. Hopefully the author will almost fix it.
- 10y ago
- prashnts 10y agoI agree that it is fine for a reference site. Though, Virtual elements are possibly a solution where only the current viewport is painted.
- bryanrasmussen 10y agoWell they could have a list of the properties without them all rendered and then render just the property they need when someone clicks on the property name. And why should it render all examples on one page? They could have a static page for every property so one could link to http://cssreference.io/align-content http://cssreference.io/align-content instead of http://cssreference.io/#align-content http://cssreference.io/#align-content and get just that static page. That should be pretty quick, especially with long caching of all other resources than the actual page content. There's lots of different ways to have done it without having to do it all at once.
- Kiro 10y agoI personally don't like that solution. I want to see everything (on one page) without having to click anything.
- hexasquid 10y agoHow about both?
- 91bananas 10y agoThen someone would have complained that this site needed JavaScript to handle those click event. Or, would have complained that it was stupid to actually use an anchor tag to link to god forbid another complete page load. Or, if they used a javascript framework to make deep links someone would have complained that they used a javascript framework for a static page, or even maybe they used the wrong JavaScript framework.
- nilliams 10y agoI don't get this complaint. This site is aimed at developers. I think it's safe to assume they're either not viewing this on mobile ever, or are going to come back and visit on desktop/etc if they actually want to use it as a resource for work, so perf is a low priority compared to the content.
- rhizome 10y agoDevelopers don't use mobile? Or tablets? Or...performance? http://imgur.com/a/GiGBY http://imgur.com/a/GiGBY
- nilliams 10y agoThat's not what I said.
- rhizome 10y agoIt's not your exact words, but I don't think it's an unfair characterization, if the excuse is simply that they'll be reading it on a desktop machine anyway. I took that image from a non-laptop desktop machine, by the way.
- nilliams 10y ago> It's not your exact words, but I don't think it's an unfair characterization You ignored the half of the sentence following the 'or'. To me, that's unfair. > if the excuse is [...] It's not an excuse, it's context. The performance is a low priority compared to the content, when the site is a developer resource.
- nateberkopec 10y agoScrolling is giving me ~20fps on my MBP...ouch.
- fractallyte 10y agoAnd yet on the native browser on my (underspecced) Jolla phone, scrolling is beautifully smooth...
- Angostura 10y agoReally - it's fine here on this old iMac running updated Safari