To be fair last time I checked there was a lot of dead JS and CSS (e.g. [1]) that should not be loaded in the first place for every page. Reducing this should make things even smoother for users.
[1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54604 On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Faidon Liambotis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:30:00AM -0800, Ori Livneh wrote: >> >> We ran a controlled test and found that module storage reduced page load >> times by 156 ms, on average. Aaron has some data available at < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Module_storage_performance>, but >> we still need to write several sections. The size of the effect is >> substantially smaller on mobile, for some reason, which is surprising. We >> hope to make the dataset public soon. > > > That sounds great, Ori. Nice work, from both of you :) > > >> 156ms shaved off of 90% of page views is pretty nice. >> http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/10/31/TheCostOfLatency.aspx is worth >> reading for context and scale: >> >> "This conclusion may be surprising -- people notice a half second delay? >> -- >> but we had a similar experience at Amazon.com. In A/B tests, we tried >> delaying the page in increments of 100 milliseconds and found that even >> very small delays would result in substantial and costly drops in >> revenue." > > > I couldn't agree more. It's widely accepted across the industry that bad > site performance/latency is detrimental to user engagement (simply put: > speed is a feature). It's exciting to see some much-needed good work in this > area. > > Regards, > Faidon > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- Jon Robson http://jonrobson.me.uk @rakugojon _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
