Indeed. The inefficiency here is astounding, especially considering the relatively straightforward page layout involved.
Original: 1496 lines, 77.9kB
Your version: 104 lines, 4.75kB
I'd thought we'd progressed beyond the state of a decade ago where Dreamweaver or what-have-you would build you a cumbersome and baroque html splooge to match whatever you had done in the designer, but I guess we haven't advanced that far. Just goes to show you that front-end devs are still as necessary as ever I suppose.
How about we've progressed to the state where HTML is the bytecode you don't want to see anyway, and designers can use modern tools to manipulate it? If the generated markup works, cross-browser and cross-platform (I don't know to what extent it does, but let's assume so), then what's the problem?
For many purposes, optimizing the HTML nerd out of the process is a much bigger win than a 20k download (don't forget gzip) is a loss.
I know this is going to get me downvotes, but I think the dogmatic "HTML shall be written by hand!!1" attitude all over this thread is just people clinging to the past.
In this case it's a 78k download, of just text. That adds up over enough users. It adds to page load times, it adds to page rendering times, it adds to bandwidth costs.
And then there are the higher level issues. What happens when you get a bug report about how the page is rendered in a specific browser/OS? Do you want to wade through 1500 lines of html or 100 lines? Which do you think will be easier and faster to fix? Which do you think will be easier to inspect for correctness from the start? What happens when you need to figure out why your page is rendering too slowly? Which is easier to analyze, which is easier to speed up? What happens when you want to change the design? What happens when you want to take the design and use it as a UI for a web-app?
Using a tool that generates such crappy HTML may allow an inexperienced person to create a web page with a decent appearance, and it may even save an experienced designer a few minutes upfront. But over the lifecycle of a project it ends up being an enormous drain. If you're an enthusiastic teen putting up a web page for your mother's knitting circle, it's fantastic! But this is not in any sense a truly professional tool.
Quite. It all adds up and it's unnecessary. It's not green. It's wasteful. It's not elegant. But I fear it is the way things are going, because I've seen this before -- I used to write games in lovely, pure, beautiful assembly language, then folks started using C etc because it was easier and, hey, hardware like the Amiga could still run the games fast anyway. And then the hardware got to a point where it was all so complicated only a madman would contemplate assembly language...
I think you are not considering the many websites for which this inefficiency doesn't matter. Sure, if you're write Google's main web page, every extra byte counts. But there are not many web sites where this is even close to be true.
For example, there is no big difference in functionality if the Adobe web site takes a few extra milliseconds to load. Customers just want to buy a product and get out of the way. And Adobe is a big company... This is even more true for their customers, thousands of small websites that just want to publish content as quickly as possible.
We aren't talking milliseconds, we are talking seconds to 10s of seconds. At that point, you are risking bounces, which any business-oriented site should fear, even Uncle Bob's Burger Bar.
You're forgetting that when several thousand people access a site per second, even a 1kb difference means thousands of dollars of bandwidth cost and fractions of a second of download speed.... let alone 70KB of difference which would bankrupt your company and turn all of your users away.
We don't write HTML/JS/CSS by hand because it's fun, that's for sure. We focus on code-reuse and delayed loading plus AJAX (plus gzip, compress, CDN, cache, etc.) because the customer focuses on speed and the CEO focuses on the bottom line.
And, not to mention no business owner want to get locked into a solution, they want their "data" transferable and standardized to at least some extend.
The code this produces is so horrible you've lost all the time spent with it. Muse dies out, and your time spent in it dies with it.
And, not to mention no business owner want to get locked
into a solution, they want their "data" transferable and
standardized to at least some extend.
That's a weird thing to say. Why do many business continue to use things like MS Office - or rather, its fabulous file formats then? Or other vendor-lock-in products? Don't misunderstand me, I'd wish all businesses would think like this, because open standards are infinitely superior to vendor-specific file formats. But unfortunately, most don't.
Maybe - but nobody uses Front Page, and for good reason. The tools need to reach some critical point of utility and dependability before business will make single-vendor investments.
Still, it absolutely defies reason that a business would need to hire someone specifically to edit a bit of text or change a font on a web site. Once a credible product along these lines hits the market, the terms HTML and CSS will disappear from the overwhelming majority of job descriptions, forever.
That's only weird to those who think open standards to be the only viable standard. MS Office is the de facto standard and your data is not vendor-locked when using it. Please provide link to a somewhat decent Word/Excel/... alternative which doesn't at least let you read the document and save it in their own format.
That's only weird to those who think open standards to be
the only viable standard.
Open standards are the only viable standard if you want adaptable, future-oriented and collaborative software ecosystems as well as likewise markets. You simply cannot guarantee or even create these circumstances with standards that are set by a single corporation (or worse, a trust) - which is only logical because they were designed to do the exact opposite ('defective by design').
MS Office is the de facto standard
I wasn't arguing that. My point is that this is bad and needs to be replaced.
your data is not vendor-locked when using it
I think you somewhat misunderstand the term 'vendor-lock'. Sure, you can open Office files with other programs and convert them into open file formats, such as odt.
This is, however, mostly thanks to people reverse engineering Microsoft's original binary file formats, and MS was not really happy about this to begin with. If they could have prevented it, they would have done so (and they tried). Even the newer OOXML is not entirely documented and prevents free implementations due to patents (which, no matter what Microsoft may claim, is the exact opposite of an open standard).
Also, while this conversion might work fine for simple, small documents (or other files), the more complex and larger your filed become the more impossible it becomes to convert without a major hassle, which brings us back to your misunderstanding of 'vendor-lock'. The terms doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to switch to alternatives, but also applies when measures are taken to make it as hard as possible to switch without investing heavily in time and money.
As a side note, I am not attacking MS Office specifically. It's just the best example for showing all that is wrong with closed standards and proprietary file formats.
I'm not preaching morals, I'm taking business. Business' care not for fair software but their investment which is why I used the "somewhat open standard"-wording.
In the history you're clinging to you completely ignore that there was no real alternative. Open standards weren't in a viable state. Furthermore the competition from closed standards have forced open standards to shape up.
Completely off-topic, but - like it or not - business runs on Excel. I certainly don't because I have to deal with it on a day to day basis. There's simply no convincing them to move to another format. Excel is the defacto "move numbers and data around" file format in the organization I work for.
If I had to bet, I'd say most companies using a product like this are not looking to build a site that'll be around for years on end. Most of these sites probably have a shelf-life of two years at most.
I definitely want and wish for tools that can allow me to design websites without having to know what IE developers were thinking the day they decided to have some fun.
The reason vim, emacs and the likes are still used a lot isn't because of nostalgia but because it works great for the user.
The issue with all the WYSIWYG editors is they take the "a web site can be anything and everyone can be a designer"-approach which is completely make believe. Till they make some form of WYSIWYM editor aimed at the web designer to use, all other approaches are worthless because they are basically just Word that's fancied up.
Most graphic designer classes have a field trip to see how typographers worked for newspapers 60 years go, and learn why their job was important - and such a day will come for designers some day too when it comes to writing code in hand.
Mobile users account for more than 15% of my company's corporate website (for reference purposes, IE is 26%, firefox 35%). Making a webpage 10 times bigger/taking 40 times longer to render isn't really an option.
Downvotes are deserved.
You may not want to see HTML, but the thing is, it impacts performance of the page. Client side performance has direct and measureable business impact.
Also, let's not forget, that more and more people browser the web on their mobile phones. Some still pay a lot for bandwidth or have a traffic cap, so every byte counts there. Also, so far mobile phones are pretty restctricted in resources, and if you go over some limit compontents of your page won't be cached and browser will have to redownload them, then see the first point.
If you use any kind of DOM manipulation having gaziilion of unneeded elements will slow script down a lot. Once again, on the phones and tablets that is even more important than on desktops.
Others already mentioned accessibility.
There should never be ecscues for a sloppy code not to metion a horrible code like this.
First of all, it takes almost no time at all to learn HTML/CSS. I'm willing to bet that it takes just about as long as it takes to learn how to use all the controls in Muse. Supporting IE6 is the most time consuming aspect of cross-platform web support, and there is plenty of precedent for that available freely online. ASM is a not so easily learned and understood as HTML/CSS.
Second, HTML is for telling the browser how to lay out content. When you use Muse or Dreamweaver or iWeb or whatever, you're essentially "scripting" your HTML in a proprietary GUI. When that GUI changes or disappears, how will you maintain that page? Yes, by hand.
All WYSIWYG GUIs should seek to output human-maintainable code, at the very least. It isn't a performance issue.
Hmm, so 11.5kB vs 1.7kB with gzip, which I believe browsers can usually handle. That's a factor of 6.6, incidentally. I don't know much about this, but might it still be ok?
Keep in mind that those connections are all going to be stuck in TCP slow start (gradually improving) for the duration of their communications, meaning that the smaller version gets loaded in 2*RTT, as it will probably fit, in it's entirety, in 2 packets. The larger one is going to take 8 or so packets, meaning a lot more RTTs (probably at least 4, assuming aggressive TCP tuning, and possibly 6. Since RTT can easily be 120ms, these can be substantially larger load times, and that can make a huge impact to user impression:
Even small changes in response times can have significant effects. Google found that moving from a 10-result page loading in 0.4 seconds to a 30-result page loading in 0.9 seconds decreased traffic and ad revenues by 20% (Linden 2006).
edit: It has been pointed out below that rfc2581 is going to mitigate this somewhat, and they are absolutely right, although I don't know what the implementation levels on this are in the real world, so my observations above may be obsolete for newer OSs.
Basic RFC 2581 should hardly count as an aggressively tuned stack, and even it'd do the larger file in 4 roundtrips (syn/synack, req/2 packets, -/4 packets more, -/8 packets more). These days even an initial cwnd of 10 might not count as aggressive any more, given it's the default initial cwnd on recent Linux kernels...
Hopefully this issue will get back on the table with increasing mobile internet usage, and people bouncing off because of poor load times. I cant count the number of times I have to hit the back button just because it takes too long to load.
I really do not want to see that 1mb picture of your dog mascot, but i was actually interested in your 5kb product description... Oh well if you dont care about your site, you probably dont care about selling your product either.
Original: 1496 lines, 77.9kB
Your version: 104 lines, 4.75kB
I'd thought we'd progressed beyond the state of a decade ago where Dreamweaver or what-have-you would build you a cumbersome and baroque html splooge to match whatever you had done in the designer, but I guess we haven't advanced that far. Just goes to show you that front-end devs are still as necessary as ever I suppose.