On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Maciej Jaros <egil(a)wp.pl> wrote:
Aryeh Gregor (2011-01-17 17:31):
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Magnus Manske
<magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
There is the question of what browsers/versions
to test for. Should I
invest large amounts of time optimising performance in Firefox 3, when
FF4 will probably be released before WYSIFTW, and everyone and their
cousin upgrades?
Design for only the fastest browsers. Other browsers could
always
just be dropped back to the old-fashioned editor.
+1
IMHO on some later stage (after optimizing and testing) you should think
about quickly dropping to either simple version of the editor (e.g. only
folding ref) or to the plain textarea version. Also old versions of
browser might benefit a lot by not using jQuery too much (IIRC Google JS
engine was the first to be optimized for frameworks like jQuery and that
is why it behaves better). Maybe also some hint for users might be given
that their browser/machine is too slow for more advanced editor on whole
page and that they might want to edit a single section...
Thanks. Most options (bold/italics, links, HTML/references, images,
tables) can already be configured separately before parsing. This can
be linked to browser sniffing to reduce parse time in older browsers
at the expense of "nice" layout. It could also be a user option.
OTOH, it might not be necessary: I just added section editing
(including intro section 0). The section can be edited in place, and
"cancel" will show the original HTML without having to reload the
page.
On my usual test article [[Paris]], the slowest section ("History")
parses in ~5 sec (Firefox 3.6.13, MacBook Pro). Chrome 10 takes 2
seconds. I believe these will already be acceptable to average users;
optimisation should improve that further.
Cheers,
Magnus