- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:41:29 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16442 --- Comment #4 from Roy <tchalvakspam@gmail.com> 2012-03-20 10:41:27 UTC --- I decided to run some timing tests, all performed with a pre-primed cache: Computer specs: notebook computer (Lenovo ideapad U350 notebook) running ubuntu linux, firefox 10. This is pretty much the only website that I've seen give this computer trouble. It's not a powerhouse by any means, but apart from heavy image processing, it never complains on any other sites. Testing http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ Full initial load: 70 seconds (Shortcut to sectioned spec opened after the first 10 seconds, I ignored it to see how long the full spec would take to load.) Loaded page and then clicked through to multi-page version: 60 seconds. Second load test: 50 seconds. 20 seconds for initial page to load, another 30 seconds for it to respond to the click and 10 to load the next page. http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html Firefox: 46 seconds to fully load. Second load test: 56 seconds to fully load. 20 sec to display content on page. Google chrome, 26 seconds to fully load. Second time through, ~20 seconds to load "slow loading?" window, by the time it loaded the page was fully loaded. Droid 2 Global, Android 2.2 browser: 110 seconds to display any content. ~150 seconds to finish loading the page. (I actually recommend against testing this on mobile, it made mine very unresponsive) Firefox loads google.com , in under a second, as usual. Ditto msn.com. So what does this suggest to me: The "loading slowly?" box cuts down on the overall time slightly, and you get a more usable result out of it, but it's by no means a silver bullet. I suspect that there's something going on here where web pages rarely use so much raw html or something so browsers aren't optimized for using memory efficiently with raw html, as I can, say, run flash and javascript games on this machine just fine. Obviously avoiding that "all the spec in a single page" load would be ideal, and that may only be accomplishable via some kind of SEO or use of canonical urls targeted at specific elements. (These tests were by no means empirical, and obviously this machine isn't a powerhouse, but I'm sure there are people using worse, and on mobile it pretty much thrashes the device.) -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 10:41:36 UTC