3 ms·
Issue is severe, but the proposed solution does not sound efficient in any way. In comparison to blackout day: 1. Turning site off is a lot easier than instal
by alandarev 12y ago
Issue is severe, but the proposed solution does not sound efficient in any way.
In comparison to blackout day:
1. Turning site off is a lot easier than installing apache module and configuring it. What if site admin does not even have root access?
2. Customer getting the slow site load might not get the message, but instead turn around for a competitor. [1]
[1] 40% of people abandon a website that takes more than 3 seconds to load. - http://blog.kissmetrics.com/loading-time/ http://blog.kissmetrics.com/loading-time/
- wiremine 12y agoI don't think slowing the site down really helps convey the speed difference anyways, because they aren't seeing it apples-to-apples. Instead, I think you want to load two version of the site in to iFrames (or something) and throttle one. This would also be a good way to show a user how crappy their connection is compared to a _real_ high speed connection: The problem isn't just that they are creating a "fast" lane and a "slow" lane, but the fact that US-based "fast" lanes are actually fairly slow to begin with.