2 ms·
Improving page rendering speed can also benefit server a lot. If done properly server would have to answer one request for Javascript file, and none on repeated
by rimantas 15y ago
Improving page rendering speed can also benefit server a lot.
If done properly server would have to answer one request for Javascript file, and none on repeated requests. Now it has to answer 13 requests no matter what (3 scripts are loaded from third party servers).
Similarly after optimizing CSS images server would have to server much less traffic (and maybe fewer requests). Footer.gif and subnav.gif together take about 200KB now, but the size can be cut in half just by switching to PNG. Remaking the background with repeated images and some cicada pattern for noise should let to cut the size tenfold.
Tweetie.png can be less than 2KB without losing quality — that's 15x less.
Photos are served from different domain (good), bet those small jpegs are still way too big file-size wise. I guess they are produced automatically, but it would be worth to have some additional optimization for them — that alone would allow to cut the size of each about tenfold too.
- mattetti 15y agoYou are rightto some extend, however serving static content is much faster than serving a dynamic request that needs to generate a response on the fly. Before optimizing the assets, improving the caching strategy and async rendering will yield a better throughput must faster than tweaking the CSS, JS and other assets. That said you are right, this is something that will improve page rendering time, client side and to some extend the overall throughput.