Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryanrasmussen | Hacker News Reader

If stats on usage shows that poor performance results in actual loss of views and loss of revenue I don't see how setting a browser configuration to say you would like things to perform well is going to help.

View on HN

I don’t think I understand your point. Wouldn’t a browser fidelity setting like this mean you could theoretically request slimmer versions of sites and thus result in better performance/experience? Or am I misunderstanding?

I think GP is saying: we already know poor performance results in worse conversion. But website performance still tends to suck. So this new option that developers have to implement is just another thing for developers to neglect.

It feels like too much of this is blaming developers. Most places I've been, you have to fight for the privilege to do things right. There's always some non-technical-manager-imposed deadline, formulated from wishes, which is a difficult target to hit.

Devs probably aren't choosing to skip doing the right things; they're forced to.

I agree devs are forced to skip doing the right things, I worked on the help site of a large media organization in the Nordic region and the project manager when I kept pushing to improve performance basically said performance doesn't matter - and we were way over the 3 second limit.

yes although more for the business to neglect or to actively say we will not be handling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com