On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Maciej Jaros egil@wp.pl wrote:
Aryeh Gregor (2011-01-17 17:31):
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@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