Interview With Web Optimization Expert Andy King

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Interview With Web Optimization Expert Andy King

Posted by timothy on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:11AM from the make-things-simple dept.

Adrian Holovaty writes "Andy King, author of the new book Speed Up Your Site: Web Site Optimization, was kind enough to chat with me about Web optimization -- making pages load and work efficiently -- and how it applies to news/information sites and weblogs. Andy founded WebReference.com and Javascript.com, two of the most respected Web development sites."

25 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Banner Ads by misfit13b · 2003-03-11 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

"At a certain point users will reject a multitude of banner ads."
Ya think? Just check out one of the sites he founded, webreference.com. People take web design advice from that example?!
1. Re:Banner Ads by cyb97 · 2003-03-11 06:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Founded != designed... further websites is usually taken over my moneygrabbing capitalists when they start to receive hits enough to charge ppv instead of clickthrough...
  No flame intended ;-)
2. Re:Banner Ads by Drakin · 2003-03-11 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  So I'm not the only one to check out the sites and say "What the hell?"
  
  Maybe the guy is a great optimiser... but useful design, isn't his game.
3. Re:Banner Ads by misfit13b · 2003-03-11 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  No flame taken. :^)
  However, if I were him, that's not a website I'd like to be associated with in the second paragraph of a Q&A about web optimization. And just to be catty, that color scheme leaves a lot to be desired too. ha ha ;^)
4. Re:Banner Ads by cyb97 · 2003-03-11 07:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There's a lot on that page that leaves stuff to be desired... IMHO the best way to convey information (which is basically what the web is *still* about, I hope) is not to have jumpy banners and moving animations all around the text the visitor is supposed to read...
5. Re:Banner Ads by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-12 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  taken over my moneygrabbing capitalists.....
  
  and sold by? umm...... moneygrabbing capitalists or fools.
Oh, the hypocrisy! by Wonko42 · 2003-03-11 06:29 · Score: 4, Funny

I'll listen to this guy's advice on web optimization as soon as his sites begin adhering to W3C standards. Until then, he's a monkey in a tree throwing poo at the other monkeys trying to get them to stop throwing their poo at him.
1. Re:Oh, the hypocrisy! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  I like monkeys.
Amen! (n/t) by misfit13b · 2003-03-11 07:22 · Score: 0

(stupid lameness filter!)
isn't it ironic, dontcha think? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 08:32 · Score: 0, Troll

i think slashdot could use a little optimizing.

get rid of the klunky tables, and use xml + css. Jaime et al have claimed that using mod_gzip reduces bandwidth usage as much as css would. Bullshit. In my testing, I found a 10% reduction in bandwidth using css and mod_gzip.

This would have the benefit of allowing users easier access to setting fonts and layout.

I'm sure the janitor response will be "what about lynx" or some other such bullshit (like "code it yourself". Guess what? I have!), but lynx doesn't even handle tables, so xml won't be much worse. You could be conservative, and serve up the current garbage for browsers that don't accept xml, and the new format for those that do.

Ah well, given slashdot's life expectancy, it'd make as much sense as an Ted Kennedy after 6 hours at an open bar.
Tables suck? by dimator · 2003-03-11 08:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

OK, I'm down with modern-day new-fangled design strategies, but sometimes a table does exactly what I need, with a minimum of effort. Am I evil?

--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
1. Re:Tables suck? by great+throwdini · 2003-03-11 08:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'm down with modern-day new-fangled design strategies, but sometimes a table does exactly what I need, with a minimum of effort. Am I evil?
  
  No, but if you're going to use them (on say ... your /. link) you should probably make certain they don't explode at font-sizes other than the one on your development platform (for example, on say ... your /. link). :p
Holy cr... by metamatic · 2003-03-11 08:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

I remember using webreference.com a couple of years ago. Hadn't been there in ages, just went back to look and... yeesh!

If I hadn't read this story, I would have assumed that the owners of webreference.com had let the domain expire, and some lamer had snatched it up and used it as a backup URL for his GeoCities site.

Needless to say, webreference.com is being deleted from my bookmarks as soon as I hit Submit.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Superior Site by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 10:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Personally I think www.w3schools.com is a far [far far] superior site.
1. Re:Superior Site by Mastos · 2003-03-12 07:08 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  DevGuru is also a good one if a bit Microsoft-centric.
been their done that ...... by oliverthered · 2003-03-12 01:09 · Score: 1

Did he just pick up the nearest magazine or book and describe the layout that he saw?

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Table Optimization? by 2Wrongs · 2003-03-12 07:30 · Score: 1

Some news sites still use tables, font tags and single pixel GIFs, which can be inefficient. Switching to high-level CSS selectors and CSS layout control can make a big difference in size and speed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this cut out a lot of legacy browsers? I'm also not sure about ADA compliance w/ this methodology. I imaging news sites would want to appeal to the widest possible audience.
1. Re:Table Optimization? by critter_hunter · 2003-03-12 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  You got your facts backwards. Structural HTML + CSS presentation is the best way to combine nice presentation (for conforming browsers) with backwards compatibility and accessibility.
  
  --
  Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
2. Re:Table Optimization? by Felipe+Hoffa · 2003-03-12 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  Try Wired News.
  
  No tables, and looks great in the latest versions of Mozilla and Explorer. Not only that, try the same page with Lynx or Avantgo and see it working flawlessly with them too.
  
  Fh
3. Re:Table Optimization? by yelvington · 2003-03-13 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, no, no.
  
  Good site design is driven by a clearly defined business requirements.
  
  The design of open Web news sites, which are dependent on advertising support, is driven by a commercial requirement that the layout -- including all of the advertising -- be visually consistent across all supported browsers.
  
  Most of us define "supported browsers" to include 4.x and newer. That is a business decision, not a technical decision, and it's driven by observation of actual usage.
  
  Your definition of "backwards compatibility and accessibility" misses this key point: To paraphrase McLuhan, the layout is the message. CSS2 layout degrades into a 1993 Mosaic-like presentation on older browsers. When the layout drops away, the message is lost.
  
  The site may be "accessible" by your definition, but it doesn't meet the business requirement of presentational consistency.
  
  Don't get me wrong -- I like CSS2 a lot. I wish everybody used a standards-conforming Web browser so that we could stop writing ugly table-infested HTML. Maybe a year from now.
4. Re:Table Optimization? by 2Wrongs · 2003-03-13 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  When I tried w/ Netscape 4.76, I go this message: Wired News content is accessible to all versions of every browser. However, this browser may not support basic Web standards, preventing the display of our site's design details.
  Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of CSS and I do use it, but I can't tell people with older browsers to go take a hike, and I don't have time to code multiple pages (like Wired is apparently doing.)
5. Re:Table Optimization? by Felipe+Hoffa · 2003-03-13 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's exactly what I'm looking for!
  
  They just keep one version of their site (no need to code multiple pages). It will look good on modern browsers that implement CSS (like IE and Mozilla), but it will also work flawlessly with not capable browsers (eg Netscape 4.76). You will only lose the fancy stuff, but you will able to access all the content. Try with Lynx or with a speech reader browser for blind people, it will work.
  
  Fh