556568 - let's test a version of /ie.html that's lighter on images

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(www.mozilla.org :: General, defect, P3)

Description

[John Slater]

As noted in bug 555235, the download page for IE users seems to perform increasingly better as we continue to optimize it for page load speed. So, let's continue that process by seeing how it would work with fewer images.

Specifically, that means:
- remove the illustration-heavy background we have now, and replace with the alternate background used on other site pages (like http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/about/whatismozilla.html, for example).
- any other related tweaks you can do (as discussed on the phone).

Important question for Blake and/or Alex: should Steven be basing these changes on the optimized version from bug 555235, or should he be building off the current live version?

Comment 1

[Blake Cutler]

Build off the the optimized version please.

Comment 2

[Alex Buchanan [:abuchanan]]

Attachment: screenshot

The fancy background images are 40-70 Kb, e.g.
http://mozcom-cdn.mozilla.net/img/tignish/firefox/background-firefox-1.jpg

The suggested alternate is still 50 Kb.  That's not a huge difference.
http://www.mozilla.com/img/tignish/template/background-feature.jpg

What if we didn't use either, and just used the tiled background image at 3.6 Kb?
http://mozcom-cdn.mozilla.net/img/tignish/firefox/background-tile.jpg

It'd look like the screenshot I've attached.

That could be a separate test.  I'd be curious to try one with no images too.

Comment 3

[John Slater]

could we just test all of the above? the ideas from comment #0 and comment #2, that is...

Comment 4

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

(In reply to comment #3)
> could we just test all of the above? the ideas from comment #0 and comment #2,
> that is...

Would you want to then run 4 variations?
Fancy (40-70kb)
Alternate (50kbs)
Tiled (3.6kbs)
No image

Comment 5

[Blake Cutler]

If you're happy with the look, sure.

Comment 6

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

I've got these four variations setup in trunk in r66044:

http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ie-perf-a
http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ie-perf-b
http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ie-perf-c
http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ie-perf-d

The "no image" version looks pretty barren (and I had to change the heading text to a dark color to be legible on the white background).

Note that these variations only mess with the feature background image(s) - not any other images on the page.

Comment 7

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

Attachment: Variation C

Variation C looks weird to me...

Comment 8

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

(In reply to comment #7)
> Variation C looks weird to me...

Ah, yes. Should be fixed in trunk in r66048. Thanks.

Comment 9

[Alex Buchanan [:abuchanan]]

Done?  On hold?  Blocked?

Comment 10

[Blake Cutler]

This is running.  Since the conversion rate is ~15% higher, I'm going to keep it running until we push the ie.html speed optimizations.

Comment 11

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

Blake, which version is providing the ~15% improvement? The mozilla.com redesign for Firefox 4 is underway and this could help inform some design decisions.

Comment 12

[Blake Cutler]

All of the designs that had the performance improvement.  Still waiting on to get this bug resolved: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557562

On a related note, these variations aren't affected by the bug you identified in comment 22 of bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=555235, right?

Comment 13

[Blake Cutler]

version "ie-perf-c" performed best.  This had the fewest images and loaded fastest.

Comment 14

[raymond [:retornam] (inactive)]

(In reply to comment #13)
> version "ie-perf-c" performed best.  This had the fewest images and loaded
> fastest.

verified fixed