71–80 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to think so, but they haven't yet. They don't even load any page content, so that you don't get URLs like http://twitter.com/stuff/1234/things#!/different/stuff
No version of IE - not even IE9 - supports pushState. Nor does the Android browser, for that matter. http://caniuse.com/history
His rant doesn't seem too informed: "aggressive anti-performance and apparent contempt for the web by Twitter’s designers" According to his charts most of Twitter's page is JS/CSS and presumably set to heavily cache. Very little is data. Once you've done the first page load Twitter's pages will load quite fast and efficiently. While quite a lot of JS, this is good design, not bad.
[1] http://www.metafilter.com/113541/The-Magic-Dollar-Sign#42233...
[2] http://www.metafilter.com/113541/The-Magic-Dollar-Sign
Google and Yahoo have been preaching for years that even fractions of a second of page load time have a big impact on how likely users are to give up and go somewhere else. Caching doesn't help anyone if the user doesn't come back. It would really be better (for Twitter) to make that first, uncached page load the fastest one of all.
File this under "annoying to developers and no-one else". Twitter obviously caches 99% of this stuff. I absolutely agree that 2.2MB on one page seems absolutely insane, but that doesn't match up with the experience every time you load the page. And I imagine it's pre-caching code that runs on other pages as well, so you most likely only ever take that download hit once. Yes, they should bring that amount down. No, it…
File this under "annoying to developers and no-one else". I never follow Twitter links because of exactly this (well and the fact that they trap you with forwards). It is a terribly negative experience. Even if I had all of those files cached the parsing and execution of all of that JavaScript is far from instantaneous. Same deal with TechCrunch -- stopped visiting because it is such a script-laden monstrosity that i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good question. The resource panel from the old Safari 4 webinspector looked that way: http://www.webkit.org/blog/197/web-inspector-redesign/
Yup, Safari 5 I dont see this.
It doesn't have all the features, but easily makes up for that by the fact that you can actually click around as much as you like without your browser getting all slumpy from loading huge pages or doing javascript.
You'd expect caching to help, but there's a lot of truth in the jQuery tax article[1]: even if you got the code cached, executing it all takes a significant amount of time, and the sluggishness is made worse by the fact that during this time your CPU is busy, unlike with data transfers which at most cost some memory.
I don't use the m.twitter.com site all the time, but I switch often enough whenever I get too annoyed by default Twitter's slowness.
The only real downside (for me) is that you can't click through to a full resolution version of a profile picture. Otherwise all the basic features are in there.
[1] http://samsaffron.com/archive/2012/02/17/stop-paying-your-jq...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
File this under "annoying to developers and no-one else". I never follow Twitter links because of exactly this (well and the fact that they trap you with forwards). It is a terribly negative experience. Even if I had all of those files cached the parsing and execution of all of that JavaScript is far from instantaneous. Same deal with TechCrunch -- stopped visiting because it is such a script-laden monstrosity that i…
Say- are you a developer?
I have no interest in the specific code behind Twitter, whether in the presentation or behind it, but rather simply note that the general twitter experience is a poor one.
His rant doesn't seem too informed: "aggressive anti-performance and apparent contempt for the web by Twitter’s designers" According to his charts most of Twitter's page is JS/CSS and presumably set to heavily cache. Very little is data. Once you've done the first page load Twitter's pages will load quite fast and efficiently. While quite a lot of JS, this is good design, not bad.
I've used Twitter not very long ago (since then I've visited a forum, a piece of docs, left my browser idle half an hour, and visited HN), now I've just looked in about:cache and twitter/twimg only have a handful of profile pictures.
His rant doesn't seem too informed: "aggressive anti-performance and apparent contempt for the web by Twitter’s designers" According to his charts most of Twitter's page is JS/CSS and presumably set to heavily cache. Very little is data. Once you've done the first page load Twitter's pages will load quite fast and efficiently. While quite a lot of JS, this is good design, not bad.
It typically takes anywhere from 4-8 seconds before the first tweet appears, and another 2-4 seconds before the page is fully loaded. Twitter is quite definitely the slowest website I visit on a regular basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No version of IE - not even IE9 - supports pushState. Nor does the Android browser, for that matter. http://caniuse.com/history
It's easy enough to use pushState where available and fall back on #!