Home of the ColdFusion Community
|
Mailing Lists
|
Home /
Groups /
ColdFusion Talk (CF-Talk)
poll - How many MS should it take to load a site's home page?
Author: Joel Stobart
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#297065
I agree with the 1 to 2 seconds on Broadband. I allow 10 seconds on my phone. Its
all to do with how long you think it *should* take.
I just though I would share with everyone a really interesting page on the
android website. http://code.google.com/android/toolbox/philosophy.html .
It talks about fast, efficient, and seamless code. I think its well worth a read.
Cheers,
Joel
Author: Jerry Guido
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#297056
>>Speed is important in the CONTEXT of that experience but isn't the SUM
of
>>it. Usability is a huge, almost completely overlooked (by most
>>organizations) part of that: people will pay more, suffer lag and
accept
>>fewer features to work with a highly usable system.
I am willing to wait quite a bit of time for Gmail to load a good 5- 10
seconds on a fat pipe. Sometimes longer when FF gets sluggish. But after
the initial load time it is pretty snappy.
But them again I am checking my email and Gmail loads a lot faster than
Outlook so I am willing to wait. So it is relative to the perceived
value of the content relative to the "competition".
Jerry Guido
Programmer
MGT of America, Inc.
jguido@mgtamer.com
The information contained in this electronic communication is intended
only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly
prohibited.
page?
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Speed is very important but experience is moreso. People are definitely
willing to invest more (time, money, whatever) for even a perceived gain
(In
quality, status, whatever).
The classic example is Starbucks where (at least for a regular cup of
coffee) you pay more and wait more for a cup of coffee that's doesn't
test
as better than many quickserv chains. It's the experience that keeps
them.
Speed is important in the CONTEXT of that experience but isn't the SUM
of
it. Usability is a huge, almost completely overlooked (by most
organizations) part of that: people will pay more, suffer lag and accept
fewer features to work with a highly usable system.
Jim Davis
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#297055
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Exactly true - it's part of that queue affinity I was talking about. Until
you get people "in the line" they've no loyalty to their choice. Once they
choose a line their loyalty for it increases the longer they stay even in
the face of obvious negatives.
That's all a long way of saying "ya gotta get 'em through the front door!"
;^)
Jim Davis
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#297054
> page?
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Speed is very important but experience is moreso. People are definitely
willing to invest more (time, money, whatever) for even a perceived gain (In
quality, status, whatever).
The classic example is Starbucks where (at least for a regular cup of
coffee) you pay more and wait more for a cup of coffee that's doesn't test
as better than many quickserv chains. It's the experience that keeps them.
Speed is important in the CONTEXT of that experience but isn't the SUM of
it. Usability is a huge, almost completely overlooked (by most
organizations) part of that: people will pay more, suffer lag and accept
fewer features to work with a highly usable system.
Jim Davis
Author: Neil Middleton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#297049
I kinda disagree on this.
For me, you only need to look at performance overall if you are slower
than your competitors, but that first hit should always be nice and
snappy. Once the user is looking at your site, they are less likely
to run off on the first slow page hit.
Neil
On Jan 21, 2008 6:12 PM, Dave Watts <dwatts@figleaf.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, to be successful, your application simply has to be no
> slower than your competitors' while providing the same level of
> functionality and reliability. As a result, the answer to the original
> question - how many MS should it take to load a site's home page - is a
> business question, not a technical question.
Author: Tom Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#297047
> On the other hand, to be successful, your application simply has to be no
> slower than your competitors' while providing the same level of
> functionality and reliability.
That's a very interesting take on it, cool.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to centrally reinvent innovative systems
on: http://thefalken.livejournal.com
****************************************************
This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at Halliwells
LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is
available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in
relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any
person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
For more information about Halliwells LLP visit
www.halliwells.com.
Author: Nate Willard
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#297042
Thanks for everyone's thoughts on around this topic. I
enjoyed reading your comments.
Incase anyone's interested I highly recommend Yahoo!'s
yslow: http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow/
its a great tool for performance issues around this
topic. Right now my goal is to always have the site
I'm building be under 3 seconds loading, 200ms
processing.
--- Neil Middleton <neil.middleton@gmail.com> wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Neil Middleton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#297038
Normally I work to a rule of around 2 seconds perceived time before
stuff starts appearing on the page with everything else appearing in
the next two.
The thing with page loads aren't anything to do with ms duration in
CF, but the perception by the user. The user does give a t*ss what
the server, code, or anything else are doing to achieve that.
That said, if you can't manage 4-5 seconds, distract the user with
something else (ASCII Porn?).
Neil
On 20 Jan 2008, at 08:34, Nate Willard wrote:
> Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts.
>
> How many milliseconds should it take for a site's home
> page to load?
Author: Sonny Savage
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#297026
Seems like 4.2 seconds should have been the answer...
On Jan 21, 2008 2:58 PM, James Wolfe <james-cftalk@goqs.com> wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: James Wolfe
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#297023
4 seconds
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6131668.stm
>Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts.
>
>How many milliseconds should it take for a site's home
>page to load?
Author: Don L
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#296989
This is a great thread with very interesting inputs and I want to thank everyone
for that. Here's my take (not research result but more on 'gut' instinct),
different demographics may have a slightly different tolerant level for page
loading speed. The younger could be less tolerant of speed while the older just
the opposite...
(on the other hand, generalization always has its limitation too...)
It would be interesting to find some study/research result on eBay finding of
this idea...
>Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts.
>
>How many milliseconds should it take for a site's home
>page to load?
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#296984
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
On the other hand, to be successful, your application simply has to be no
slower than your competitors' while providing the same level of
functionality and reliability. As a result, the answer to the original
question - how many MS should it take to load a site's home page - is a
business question, not a technical question.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta,
Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location.
Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information!
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#296978
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Not really... user expectations haven't really changed. "Anxiety" may be a
strong word but it's still appropriate (I'd probably use "frustration").
It could be argued while the internet has created an expectation of delay
faster computers have created an expectation of speed. It doesn't really
matter tho' as users tend not to distinguish things that way.
It's a pet peeve of mine (I'm not really talking about what you said) but
developer's really have to stop assuming that people are as sophisticated as
they are. More specifically (and less arrogantly) they have to stop
assuming that people actually give a rat's ass about the stuff they do. ;^)
People want things to work, work fast and work correctly - they don't care
if it's web-based or not, uses a database or not, etc.
People may sit down to a web application and intellectually think "this is
going to be slow" but it doesn't alter their innate transactional timetable.
People may EXPECT a satellite feed to be delayed, they KNOW it will be
delayed. But they are still disconcerted and frustrated by the delay
nonetheless.
These numbers aren't what people are willing to put up with - they describe
the results of waiting for response, generally. Even if a person KNOWS that
this web application will be slower they will still lose focus and
attention. It's just the way we're wired - regardless of how fast our
technology happens to be.
Jim Davis
Author: Tom Chiverton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#296960
> Slightly different scenario, but back in the days of big iron (CICS and
> 3270? terminals), IBM came up with a study that stated that anything over a
> 2sec response time "caused anxiety in the user".
Different era.
Users are more used to waiting for things now, esp. over the internet.
That said, sub-10 second is OK, but I would aim for sub-5.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to adaptively reinvent bleeding-edge products
on: http://thefalken.livejournal.com
****************************************************
This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at Halliwells
LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is
available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in
relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by The
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any
person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.
If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
For more information about Halliwells LLP visit
www.halliwells.com.
Author: Dave Francis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#296927
Slightly different scenario, but back in the days of big iron (CICS and
3270? terminals), IBM came up with a study that stated that anything over a
2sec response time "caused anxiety in the user".
page?
> Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts.
>
> How many milliseconds should it take for a site's home
> page to load?
The rule of thumb is:
+) .1 seconds (100ms or less) is what people consider "instant response".
They won't lose focus or notice any delay.
+) Anything up to 1 second will allow most people to stay focused. They'll
notice the delay but it won't interrupt or frustrate them - they still "move
freely through the information space".
+) Anything up to 10 seconds will let the user maintain attention on the
task, but the delay will be frustrating and disconcerting.
+) Anything greater and the person loses focus (wants to do other things).
This is where you need to start considering progress bars, warnings,
background downloads and other mitigating interfaces.
These aren't specifically for web pages but for general computer
transactions. Similar numbers result in nearly all interaction scenarios:
industrial design, communication (notice, for example, how communication
often breaks down on live satellite conversations when the delay grows
larger than a second), etc.
There aren't separate expectations for "web applications" vrs "applications"
- we're talking about user experience and the delivery mechanism doesn't
alter that.
Also note that this isn't "ColdFusion time" or "Download time" or "Browser
Rendering time" - this is EVERYTHING. Click-to-done. You can sometimes use
the "click-to-useful" time (the time it takes for useful information to be
displayed as when a browser is done displaying the requested information but
not down downloading non-essential graphics) but that can get touchy and
should be tested - depending on the page being unfinished can be very
noticeable or barely noticeable.
Jim Davis
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#296926
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
It's not so much that they're more willing to wait for databases (they don't
know or care HOW the thing works). There are actually a few things that
work here.
People are always willing to wait longer for information specific to them.
If they enter a search term they will wait for the results. This doesn't
change user experience - they still notice the delays, lose focus, etc - but
they are willing to wait because "the page" is working for them.
I've never actually seen it studied (and I'm too lazy to do so) but I
strongly believe there's a form of "queue affinity" going on. Queue
Affinity is when people get into line, say at the grocery store or the bank
- anyplace where there's multiple lines moving at different speeds.
Once people make a decision to get into line there's a strong tendency to
stay there even when they're faced with another line moving faster. They'll
stay in the line past normal levels of task abandonment (the time it takes
to drop a task in frustration).
There's been some work correlating this to phone queues as well as
technology decisions ("fanboyism", where an essentially arbitrary choice -
a cell phone, game system, computer OS, etc) results in string emotions
AGAINST the competition. Once people fall down that road they become more
and willing to put up with the negatives of their chosen option.
This is one of the main reasons that (I think) sites like Amazon.com and
eBay.com - sites which have taken severe plunges in usability - are still so
popular. Despite the fact that these sites are usability nightmares they
still have rabidly loyal followers (I still buy more from Amazon than from
anybody else).
Jim Davis
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#296925
> Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts.
>
> How many milliseconds should it take for a site's home
> page to load?
The rule of thumb is:
+) .1 seconds (100ms or less) is what people consider "instant response".
They won't lose focus or notice any delay.
+) Anything up to 1 second will allow most people to stay focused. They'll
notice the delay but it won't interrupt or frustrate them - they still "move
freely through the information space".
+) Anything up to 10 seconds will let the user maintain attention on the
task, but the delay will be frustrating and disconcerting.
+) Anything greater and the person loses focus (wants to do other things).
This is where you need to start considering progress bars, warnings,
background downloads and other mitigating interfaces.
These aren't specifically for web pages but for general computer
transactions. Similar numbers result in nearly all interaction scenarios:
industrial design, communication (notice, for example, how communication
often breaks down on live satellite conversations when the delay grows
larger than a second), etc.
There aren't separate expectations for "web applications" vrs "applications"
- we're talking about user experience and the delivery mechanism doesn't
alter that.
Also note that this isn't "ColdFusion time" or "Download time" or "Browser
Rendering time" - this is EVERYTHING. Click-to-done. You can sometimes use
the "click-to-useful" time (the time it takes for useful information to be
displayed as when a browser is done displaying the requested information but
not down downloading non-essential graphics) but that can get touchy and
should be tested - depending on the page being unfinished can be very
noticeable or barely noticeable.
Jim Davis
Author: Bobby Hartsfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#296919
> I believe users are generally okay with waiting a little longer
> for pages that are returning data dynamically from a search for
> example
Well, the kind of users who visited MM may be a good basis for that but the
average user doesn't know or care that there is a database even involved.
They just want what they came for and wouldn't wait much longer than 5,6,7
seconds for a page to load when there were plenty of google results for
their search term. They would just hit back and click the next one.
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
Bobby Hartsfield
http://acoderslife.com
IIRC when Macromedia had launched their new website a few years ago
(Dylan I think they called it), they published a few articles that
described web-wide averages as well as their own targets (the research
they'd done during the planning phase). They hit their target of having
pages load completely in under 15 seconds... as compared to a web-wide
average of about 7 seconds. (Those numbers are from memory -- they may
not be entirely accurate.) The overwhelming response from users was that
although it was visually appealing, it seemed tragically slow (for what
seemed to be relatively static pages anyway - I believe users are
generally okay with waiting a little longer for pages that are returning
data dynamically from a search for example).
--
s. isaac dealey ^ new epoch
isn't it time for a change?
ph: 503.236.3691
http://onTap.riaforge.org/blog
Author: s. isaac dealey
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#296915
IIRC when Macromedia had launched their new website a few years ago
(Dylan I think they called it), they published a few articles that
described web-wide averages as well as their own targets (the research
they'd done during the planning phase). They hit their target of having
pages load completely in under 15 seconds... as compared to a web-wide
average of about 7 seconds. (Those numbers are from memory -- they may
not be entirely accurate.) The overwhelming response from users was that
although it was visually appealing, it seemed tragically slow (for what
seemed to be relatively static pages anyway - I believe users are
generally okay with waiting a little longer for pages that are returning
data dynamically from a search for example).
--
s. isaac dealey ^ new epoch
isn't it time for a change?
ph: 503.236.3691
http://onTap.riaforge.org/blog
Author: Nate Willard
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:54888#296914
Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts.
How many milliseconds should it take for a site's home
page to load?
|
May 24, 2012
|
Latest Fusion Authority Articles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
