Why would we measure when the page becomes interactive (rather than viewable)? I can't imagine many people interacting with a page within the first second of it being viewable.
The reason lazy-loading wasn't faster on the larger articles is that the loading speed was less reliable. Non-lazy-load times varied by up to 1 second. Lazy-load times varied by over 2 seconds. So even though the fastest load times were from lazy-loading, so were the slowest. For small articles, the load times were very consistent for both load types. Ryan Kaldari On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Jon Robson <jrob...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Wait... I'm not convinced by this. I'm not convinced you measured the > right things. How exactly did you measure this? Did you include the > HTTP response time? > > I struggle to believe that non-lazy loaded pages could ever be faster > and that the improvement was on a half second. > > Can you post more details on the tests you ran? > Really you should be looking at numerous things, namely: > 1) Time from user request (refresh page) to being able to read the > content (DOM content loaded) - e.g. time the HTTP request takes when > just using the api and just using HTML > 2) Time the JavaScript loads and the page becomes interactive (with a > lazy loaded page this will always be 0s and on a non-lazy loaded page > this will always be more as the entire HTML, JS and CSS has to be > loaded) > > cc'ing mobile-l > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Maryana Pinchuk > <mpinc...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > Thanks, Kaldari – I've changed the description in this card[1] to reflect > > your recommendation. Unless anyone objects, we'll remove lazy-loading > > entirely in the next sprint. > > > > 1. https://trello.com/c/fFoRlvxl/3-5-remove-ajax-page-loading-from-alpha > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> I did a spike on the effects of lazy loading pages on save. I tried a > >> variety of different articles and did at least 10 tests in each mode. > >> > >> On stub size articles, lazy loading resulted in a half-second > improvement > >> in page loading on average. On larger articles, there was greater > variation > >> in lazy-loading time and the averages were virtually identical > >> (non-lazy-loaded time was actually 0.15 seconds faster on average, but > this > >> was not statistically significant). > >> > >> So basically, lazy loading results in a small improvement for small > >> articles and no improvement for large articles. Given the extra > maintenance > >> required (we have to keep maintaining virtually all of the lazy loading > code > >> for this specific use even if we don't use it elsewhere), and the > frequent > >> bugs that arise, I would still favor removing this feature. > >> > >> Ryan Kaldari > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Maryana Pinchuk > > Product Manager, Wikimedia Foundation > > wikimediafoundation.org >
_______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
