Let's make the web faster
code.google.com
code.google.com
http://code.google.com/speed/articles/optimizing-php.html
http://groups.google.com/group/make-the-web-faster/browse_th...
I think web masters, sites and developers should focus all their efforts on content quality,and check a box that the page loads fast enough now.
To the contrary of this, I consciously admire optimized page loads, that flicker into existence. But this is secondary to the "knowledge payload" of the site.
Partial checklist:
It takes something like four lines in your web server config to turn on gzip. Did you turn on gzip?
It takes perhaps ten lines of code to splat all your Javascript and CSS files into one file at deployment. If you were running Rails, this would be about fifteen keystrokes or so. Did you do it?
You should be loading your static assets from 2-3 hosts to maximize how many can be loaded in parallel. This is, again, two minutes of work and doesn't even require you to actually possess multiple hosts since you can just create multiple DNS entries pointing to the same one. Did you do it?
But its nice to see a centralized approach to do a "best practice" in web speed. Though in its infant stages (e.g. the image optimization articles are very old news and lack most of the modern techniques described in http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/07/15/clever-png-optimi... and http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/07/25/png-optimization-...) this could be a good checklist for web developers.
Step 1) Remove all external advertisement, that shit slows everyone down.
Step 2) Remove all large images (when they're resized to small sizes). I thought that this was a 90's thing, but it still happens too often.
Step 3) Remove all domain names, all too often DNS is slooow.
Step 3) Remove large useless flash banners and other such stuff thats supposed to be pretty but adds nothing functional to a site.
Step 4) Things others mentioned here + whatever I missed here...
2) depends on use, if nearly all images are provided as thumbs as well and most images are viewed full-size in the end then this can save both the overhead and the size of the thumbnail get
3) requires additional searches for discovery of dotted quads, why make this search manual when if can be done more efficiently in the background?
3[b!]) sadly flash banners may be paying for the site, but I'd agree apart from that
2) True, but I've rarely seen this be a win (for me, YMMV).
3) What? I don't understand, explain.
3[b! emm typo oops]) Why do they need to be flash when a simple image is just as good? Need animation? gif images have supported that since roman times. No need for hefty flash for these. Lots of sites (again YMMV, maybe I just go to all the retard sites) have useless crap that supposedly makes the site look prettier. Well, it doesn't and it makes it slow. Throw it out and go for user experience. (You can still make a site pretty without making it slow)