3 ms·
That sounds like server load, more than anything on the client side. When I used it everything was instant and snappy, so it might just depend on the number of
by 314 12y ago
That sounds like server load, more than anything on the client side. When I used it everything was instant and snappy, so it might just depend on the number of visitors.
Blowing away the stack by clicking is a bit of a pain. A couple of times something buggy happened where new pages overwrote some part of the old stack, but left the rest of it in place. I would like to see some option for expanding multiple branches at one level, but at that point it is probably a UI specifically for me rather than something that is generally usable.
One thing that was cute was that the stack of pages is exposed in the URL, which suggests that some nice greasemonkey tricks would be viable.
- HelloNurse 12y ago"That sounds like server load, more than anything on the client side." You are missing the point: with a normal page, server load looks like server load, whereas with "dynamic" tricks server load looks like a defective page and what you see cannot be considered the true content of the page.
- mikeash 12y agoThere's no reason the page can't display some sort of progress indicator while it waits for data. If it doesn't actually do this here then that's silly, but that's a problem with the implementation, not the concept. I'm seeing more and more apps that perform potentially long-running tasks (usually involving network access) without any indication that anything is happening. It's frustrating.