On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:05 PM Elle Stone <ellest...@ninedegreesbelow.com>
> browse the web. Other stuff, including "objects", which includes the
> downloaded fonts, is also blocked.
it. Those icons are bundled in a font file, no JS required. Blocking
"objects" and font files will cause them to not render.
I have a note somewhere to consolidate various icons into an SVG
spritesheet, but support is not quite as deep as using a font file.
Haven't decided which may be the best path to follow yet. I'll start
experimenting with them before long.
> I suspect most people running noscript/etc block "objects" as well as
Agreed. Though in that case they aren't seeing icons - functionally
everything is still there and works (it's why I don't use icon-only
navigation schemes - the text + anchors are still there).
If someone is going to purposefully block content (whatever the reason),
then they should expect things to not look as designed (but should still be
functional). I think we're covering that.
> Nice fonts are nice to see. But downloading fonts and such from another
> location to the user's computer does add to the weight and download
> speed of a page, and as "objects" they are going to be perceived as "not
> good" by security-conscious people.
Correct! See above. (If you are blocking stuff on purpose, don't be
surprised when it doesn't show up as intended). Most importantly, the site
works without those fonts (though it maybe ugly).
> Checking other browsers that aren't using Noscript/etc:
> I checked using some other browsers and still don't see the icons.
> Here's a screenshot of what I see in four different browsers - top to
> bottom the browsers are Rekonq, Konqueror, Opera, and Firefox:
I don't understand. All of the screenshots except for the last one (FF)
show the font icons just fine? That's what it looks like to me.
> As an aside, on my computer the page loading speed is very slow today,
> even considering my "not fast" internet connection. For example, just
> now it took 29 seconds to completely load the GIMP "about" page.
> Sometimes pages actually timed out with Rekonq and Konquerer. As
> reference, other websites don't seem to be taking any longer than normal.
Please stop trying to benchmark the live site right now. The server
connection limits are being stressed by many concurrent downloads at the
moment. Give it a day or two to calm down, then revisit it. (Or test it
locally with appropriate tools).
At the moment, with no optimizations, throttling to 1MB/s and a latency of
about 5ms, all above the fold content loads in about 4 - 4.5 seconds
(including background images). The DOM content loaded in about 450ms,
final full load was just shy of 10s.
The total front page weight right now is about 1.2MB total.
I'll start optimizing soon, but will not do anything until the downloads
have abated a bit.
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: firstname.lastname@example.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list