4 ms·
The difference is that earlier, if there is a load spike in monitoring, we dont know if it was cause of 3rd party scripts or some problems with out server/CDN.
by sajal83 15y ago
The difference is that earlier, if there is a load spike in monitoring, we dont know if it was cause of 3rd party scripts or some problems with out server/CDN. the former we can live with, but the latter is very bad.
Now after deferring the 3rd party scripts, we know for sure what the user experience is with regards to the main content of the site.
- billpatrianakos 15y agoOk. Fair enough. I never thought of it that way. I stand corrected. I'm tempted to argue that some third party scripts may be necessary for presenting content and delaying them can mess up a user experience. But we all know not to do that so that point is moot however there are excepts, however few, to every rule. All that aside, though I'd say I just changed my mind to agree with you.
- mjpizz 15y agoDefinitely. Though with small modifications, you should be able to have your cake and eat it too: http://www.olark.com/spw/2011/10/lightningjs-safe-fast-and-asynchronous-third-party-javascript/ http://www.olark.com/spw/2011/10/lightningjs-safe-fast-and-a... ...this technique begins downloads immediately, but still avoids blocking window.onload (just ran a brief test myself to verify this behavior). Unfortunately, it requires the third-party provider to adopt LightningJS. Here's to hoping that more providers take notice :)