Re:Better HTTP/2 Prioritization for a Faster Web
by WhiteOwlLion on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @01:06PM
(#19911303)
Why would you say extra 100ms is a minimal drawback? Google obsesses over load time because faster load time means more ad dollars generated.
700ms vs 800ms is the difference between acceptable and a slow loading web site.
Re:Better HTTP/2 Prioritization for a Faster Web
by vbezhenar on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @02:05PM
(#19912083)
https://www.google.com/ has 2.76s load time for me. Gmail 6.33s. Amazon 1.41s. Aliexpress 2.69s. Seems like entire Internet is slow?
Re:Better HTTP/2 Prioritization for a Faster Web
by skybrian on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @02:02PM
(#19912045)
It matters for websites, but only after fixing many other problems with performance and usability.
For an individual user, it doesn't matter to me if I use a website a bit less because it's a little slower. That might even be an improvement, since I was probably using the Internet too much anyway.
Re:Better HTTP/2 Prioritization for a Faster Web
by zzzcpan on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @02:23PM
(#19912296)
> It matters for websites, but only after fixing many other problems with performance and usability.
Or does it? Once you fix major performance, usability problems and it starts to feel fast - other efforts become kind of pointless and may even become sources of performance, usability problems themselves.
Re:Better HTTP/2 Prioritization for a Faster Web
by save_ferris on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @12:42PM
(#19911108)
It's important to remember that with the death of net neutrality in the US, this may not be the case forever.
However nothing says you actually have to use these fancy services. Everyone wants a quick loading site but the drawback of an extra 100ms are minimal. Almost everyone should be more concerned with good site design and minimizing client-side dependencies if they want good performance.