Yup very flawed but interesting never the less. Putting into the back
of the memory bank. Thanks for sharing Ori and thanks Brion for
pointing out the flaws that I also skimmed over :)
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Flaschen
<mflaschen(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 09/23/2013 06:11 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Per comments on the article, I wouldn't read much into it -- the
benchmark is pretty flawed. It doesn't measure anything representative
of typical usage.
Yeah. They inexplicably *only* used a single size, a 17.8kB PNG (18227
bytes). If you're not sure why that's a problem, check the size of some of
the images MW embeds. Examples from a quick grep:
resources/jquery/images/jquery.arrowSteps.head-ltr.png - 303 bytes
resources/jquery.tipsy/images/tipsy.png - 133 bytes
resources/jquery.ui/themes/vector/images/ui-icons_ffffff_256x240.png - 3702
bytes
resources/mediawiki.action/images/green-checkmark.png - 681 bytes
Why does it matter? The main reason to avoid requests for every single
image is to minimize the time, latency, and bandwidth (bytes) used for HTTP
request and responses. The smaller the image, the bigger the fraction
(header size / image size) is, thus the more wasted header time.
What he said about a 814 byte fixed header is also simply wrong. Some of
our data URIs are less than 814 bytes *total*. E.g.

is a real example from jquery.ui.dialog.
We should keep this issue in mind (there is a penalty, particularly for
large images), but that article draws a skewed picture.
Matt
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design