Submit Your Article Forum Rules

Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Should I create a new Home page to save downloading times?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Bavarian Forest
    Posts
    26

    Thumbs up Should I create a new Home page to save downloading times?

    I bought a template and have used the parts I want. I'm happy but the download times are not good for the home page. Would it make sense to create a new index.htm page, with text and log which would then link to the renamed old index.htm

    If I could preload (I don't know how) the Javascripts this would make the whole site faster and better. I only provide the url so you can see my problem www.drachsi.com

    Thanks in advance, hope somebody can help?

    Petrafin

  2. #2
    Rest in Peace 1946 - 2013 deepsand's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    State College, PA
    Posts
    16,376
    Setting aside the fact that that would merely delay the pain, I'm not seeing any sign of sluggishness; snapped right to in a little less than 3 seconds.

  3. #3
    Administrator weegillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,794
    Quote Originally Posted by deepsand View Post
    ... less than 3 seconds.
    Same here. Very fast load in Chrome.

    From what I can tell, none of your scripts need to be in the head of the document. They could all go above the </body> endtag. This way all the HTML and CSS are in place when the scripts download and execute. Remember they are not executing simultaneously, but serially, so their order might matter, as well.

    Seeing a lot of mixed document type in the code. If HTML5 is the flavor you wish to validate with, then HTML5 spec should be followed as closely to the letter (and intent) as possible. HTML5 is about semantics, and there is a lot of 'classitis' in this code that can easily be done away with, or at least made more semantic in the naming.

    Eg.
    HTML Code:
    <h1 class="style2">
    <a class="style1" href="index.htm" style="height: 50px">
    <span class="auto-style4" lang="en-gb">Business management resources</span></a></h1>
    The h1 is in the header. A CSS selector can hook it with,
    Code:
    header h1 {
     /* properties specified in 'style2' */
    }
    header h1 a {
     /* properties specified in 'style1' */
     /* include height property and remove inline style */
    }
    header h1 a span {
     /* properties specified in 'auto-style4' */
    }
    Now your HTML will look like,
    HTML Code:
    <h1><a href="/"><span lang="en-gb">Business management resources</span></a></h1>
    HTML Code:
    <!DOCTYPE html>
    <html lang="en">
    <head>
    <title>Business management resources. Your Virtual Webmaster</title>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">..
    should look like this:
    HTML Code:
    <!DOCTYPE html>
    <html lang="en">
    <head>
    <meta charset="utf-8">
    <title>Business management resources. Your Virtual Webmaster</title>..
    All of the SCRIPT and STYLE tags can have their type attributes removed. JavaScript and CSS are the default for browsers, and HTML5 has allowed the moot to fall away.

    The HOME page should have "/" as a URL, not the URI specific "index.htm". This will come back and bite you in the backside down the road when you want to switch to PHP or ASP, or whatever pre-processing you may get into. Also, the HOME page links on the home page should not have an href (title attribute is fine) or should have a page fragment for an href (#main, for example). In things NOT to do on a home page, link to itself practically tops the list.

    All minor things, but every little bit that moves you to a standard and semantic document makes it better, and future work much easier.
    Last edited by weegillis; 01-11-2012 at 03:08 AM. Reason: include earlier quote in response

  4. #4
    Senior Member jhannawin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by weegillis View Post
    The HOME page should have "/" as a URL, not the URI specific "index.htm".
    I'm not sure I agree with that. Provided that the site is consistent in how implicit URLs are handled, and canonicalisation is considered I can see nothing wrong with using an explicit "index.htm".
    Last edited by weegillis; 01-12-2012 at 02:34 PM. Reason: bbcode quote reference added
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hidden Content (tm) - A Hidden Content for Hidden Content and marketing agencies

  5. #5
    Administrator weegillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,794
    Quote Originally Posted by jhannawin View Post
    I'm not sure I agree with that. Provided that the site is consistent in how implicit URLs are handled, and canonicalisation is considered I can see nothing wrong with using an explicit "index.htm".
    While I don't disagree with your view on this, I've had enough problems 'down the road' when years later a major change goes through (as mentioned above). Those pages that are indexed will need to be redirected. If only the relative path to the file is indexed, and not the URI the pages can change their extensions without needing a redirect, provided the new page becomes the server default.

    The recommendation is merely an 'avoidance alert', not SEO--future proofing to allow for change.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •