Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote:
OK, slow, invalid, unaccessible. All we need is the lava lamps. Way to go, AMG!
Slow? Nah. Before I'd call them slow they'd got to speed it up a lot. I ran a speed report from the Web Developer Toolbar; the results were ghastly! (See below)
The real sad part is that they're actually pretty close to standards, believe it or not. They have a few tables, but I didn't notice any nesting, except for the footer.
I'd say the biggest flaw is is the abundant use of image based text. There are other flaws, of course, but most look like it would be simple to fix. I would estimate to make page standards compliant would cost less than saving in bandwidth costs for 3 months. (I'm assuming they get a lot of traffic.)
Total HTTP Requests: 50 Total Size: 167825 bytes
28.8K 65.24 seconds 33.6K 55.95 seconds 56K 33.65 seconds ISDN 10.44 seconds
Object type Size (bytes) HTML: 29258 Images: 121108 Javascript: 5641 CSS: 11818 Multimedia: 0
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
