News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by jnbiche on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:16AM (#7069178)
Irony of ironies: I can't even load this page since the server is overwhelmed from HN traffic.
[deleted]
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by thejosh on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:46AM (#7069310)
I'm from Australia and I'm having infinite loads as well.

Maybe you need better tools.

Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by Baustin on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:48AM (#7069318)
Woah, looks like you're right. Didn't see it at first but it definitely doesn't seem to be loading now.
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by bryan_rasmussen on Thursday January 16, 2014 @10:18AM (#7069793)
I thought it wasn't irony, but rather the actual message.
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by Baustin on Thursday January 16, 2014 @10:33AM (#7069897)
Yeah! See everyone, this guy got it...
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by rschmitty on Thursday January 16, 2014 @07:57AM (#7069078)
I don't get the presidential part. Lots of statements about response time being better, then the guy with nearly double the load time won the election? Not that I'm arguing against page speed, just found that odd in the info graphic..

Also, it wouldn't hurt to perfect your load times! http://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=h... 54/100 mobile & 77/100 desktop when I tested it

Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by piqufoh on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:13AM (#7069159)
Guessing in the dark from someone who didn't follow the US election -

Maybe Romney's campaign was doing better than Obama's three weeks before the vote?

I do agree though, the presidential thing sounds confused.

Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by stefantalpalaru on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:13AM (#7069166)
They are somewhat confused. In the Amazon section, they write "A 1-SECOND DECREASE IN AMAZON'S PAGE LOAD TIME WOULD ANNUALLY COST [...]" instead of "increase".
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by cliveowen on Thursday January 16, 2014 @07:54AM (#7069068)
Unreacheable, talk about irony.
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by mike-cardwell on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:00AM (#7069086)
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by maaaats on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:13AM (#7069160)
Back in the days I used Opera Mobile for surfing on the phone, when there were no data-plans or 3G/4G as there is now. A compressed page with pictures were just a few kBs, and loaded fairly quick.

But now, since the mobile net is so fast, there's little optimization done for mobile other than layout. Loading the largest newspaper in my country's mobile version is a whopping 1.5MBs with all the pictures. 2.7MB in normal. I think this is sad.

Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by aestra on Thursday January 16, 2014 @09:45AM (#7069613)
I was under the impression part of that is because of how Opera Mobile worked, they have some kinda "Turbo" mode that compressed websites and reduced downloading times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mobile

Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by dredmorbius on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:08AM (#7070130)
Including caching of optimized content.

Which played hell with the localization logic for many sites.

Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by mattmanser on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:24AM (#7069211)
I think a lot of this has to do with the introduction of retina displays, images seem to take up a lot.
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by hnha on Thursday January 16, 2014 @09:27AM (#7069533)
I really wish for a browser that let's me nicely disable js, cookies, images etc per domain easily on Android.
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by sergiotapia on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:41AM (#7069286)
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by Baustin on Thursday January 16, 2014 @09:08AM (#7069418)
Well this is embarrassing, but the irony is not lost on us: http://imgur.com/Miokv4f
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by hatsuseno on Thursday January 16, 2014 @09:18AM (#7069473)
Like a train-wreck happening, meme usage also 'incorrect', red indicates the 'positive' part of, blue the awkward juxtaposition.
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by SkyMarshal on Thursday January 16, 2014 @04:41PM (#7072735)
It's usually the opposite. Red = bad/wrong/stop, Green/Blue = good/right/go.
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by pc86 on Thursday January 16, 2014 @09:56AM (#7069659)
I'm pretty sure you inverted those.
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by neosergio on Thursday January 16, 2014 @09:17AM (#7069467)
is back now
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by piqufoh on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:00AM (#7069089)
I've just left my current mobile phone provider (Vodafone) because of the continual problems with their website. Throughout the call to request my PAC (unlock) code every employee I spoke with didn't believe me when I said that I wanted to leave because of their site. I was offered increasingly more desperate financial 'offers' without acknowledgement of my actual complaint. Some big business' still don't relate web performance with user happiness - disappointing.
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by jffry on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:12AM (#7069154)
Interesting blip in the "Conversion Rates by page load time" graph. Wonder what the reason is for the conversion rate for 0-1 seconds being markedly lower than 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4?

Also, that graph really irks me. Not enough contrast, poor layout, and confusing axis labels which depend upon color. Also, is the 0.025 on the y-axis a percentage or a decimal (I think it means 2.5% conversion rate?)

Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by MaxGabriel on Thursday January 16, 2014 @10:20AM (#7069809)
I really wish you wouldn't disable pinch to zoom on your website. The text on the info graphic was far too small to read.