W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: Picture Element Explanation.

From: Jason Grigsby <jason@cloudfour.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 07:30:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CADQU=pMZ9LU5RT-r91BpOSU1vpVAB8st4UM8SuM=Y-ZefpDk_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Deschamps <pdescham49@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Paul Deschamps <pdescham49@gmail.com> wrote:

> If performance is the main concern in lieu of breaking the separation of
> presentation from content then let's look at that. What are the measurable
> gains here? Show me the code.
>

No. You should do the work.

In Bruce's article, he quotes Steve Souders as saying that the preloader is
the "the single biggest performance improvement browsers have ever made".

In the link I provided, Andy Davies talks about how Google saw a 20% and
Firefox a 19% increase in average page speed after implementing the
preloader.

A couple years ago[1], I questioned whether the power of the preloader was
worth all of the problems it caused in finding solutions to responsive
images. I learned two things at that time:

1) the people who know this stuff really well—the people who build the
rendering engines—feel strongly that it does and
2) trying to get browser makers to support solutions that undermine the
preloader was tilting at windmills

I'm not going to waste my time proving what is well documented and that
people who know the bowels of browser rendering engines tell us to be fact.

You can't come in at the end of a four year process and demand everyone
justify themselves. Or I guess you can, but good luck with that.

If you believe in the superiority of your viewpoint, then you need to
instrument it and prove it. If you're right, awesome.

[1] http://blog.cloudfour.com/the-real-conflict-behind-picture-and-srcset/
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 15:31:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:16 UTC