this point confuses me . So there's value in it for some important services? But not the sites we use most?
-
-
Replying to @scottjehl @sil
: this is where the religion breaks down: the sites we use most can afford to build multiple versions
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
: the economic argument hinges on being price sensitive to dev costs. FB, Google, etc. simply aren't.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
we're talking about an evidence-driven approach to increase resilience that *regularly* helps us all...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @scottjehl @slightlylate and
I’ve watched gmail's spinner many times, waiting for js to provide what html should have. It happens a lot.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @scottjehl @sil
: ...and you'll have noticed a link on that page to the "plain HTML" version
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @scottjehl and
yes they made the main version too slow and had to build a second version to work around it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jaffathecake @slightlylate and
if they'd served HTML in the main site, they may not have needed to build a seperate version
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jaffathecake
: when it was built, that was status quo, and for average interactions, Gmail was/is better /cc
@scottjehl@sil@briankardell1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @jaffathecake and
: btw, we can't talk about this well is because we dont have a model for it. Working on that now.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
: I alluded to amortised load costs in my I/O talk. Users perceive variance, not just "load"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.