!! Introduction
Bitweaver has the same issues as any big modular CMS - its pages are heavy, because it is __very__ powerful and has __unlimited__ features. At the time of writing this, the statistics of the main wiki page of bitweaver,
[http://www.websiteoptimization.com/cgi-bin/wso/wso.pl?url=http://www.bitweaver.org/wiki/index.php|analyzed by the online speed report service of websiteoptimization.com], were:
||Total HTTP Requests:|31
Total Size:|103767 bytes
HTML:|7347 bytes
HTML Images:|24920 bytes
CSS Images:|13273 bytes
Total Images:|38193 bytes
Javascript:|58227 bytes
connection rate 56K|20.68 seconds download time
connection rate ISDN 128K|6.33 seconds||

{maketoc include="all"}

!! What could be done?
!!! eliminate extra size
* Jakob Nielsen is positive that we should achieve sub-8 seconds load time for the users to enjoy navigating our site. Another reason for speed optimisation is reducing the load for sites with heavy traffic. In the above report, it is obviously a rather impossible task to scale down 120 kilobyte (20 kilobyte of CSS are omitted by the analysis) to 30, necessary for sub-8 load time, but we might want to get closer to that usability ideal. (Side note: at that moment bitweaver was using Ajax for some packages - 45k!)

!!! eliminate extra HTTP requests
* Reading: ''Modem connections (56Kbps or less) are corrected by a packet loss factor of 0.7. All download times include delays due to round-trip latency with an average of 0.2 seconds per object. With 31 total objects for this page, that computes to a total lag time due to latency of 6.2 seconds.'' In the above example, we are loosing more then 6 seconds just for HTTP requests, so there's no chance for sub8 response :(
* "The less requests the better", so before optimizing file size, think how to reduce quantity of files per page.
* Think twice before you start "slicing" into small pieces your images and backgrounds in some Adobe ))ImageReady((. This technique is an offspring of table-based layouts -- when bw has div-based layout at the moment. IMHO with div-based layout you might get better results having 3 big background images instead of 30 small ones.
* Also, some of the images ''can'' be eliminated without any damage to the style. There's a nice CSS trick for rollover images (if using graphic rollover at all): the rollover images are stacked in single background file vertically, and on :hover the vertical position of background is changed in CSS. The same can be done with very small images, like icons and signs of external link etc. The trick is that it doesn't give any boost in load time if the file is smaller then 1160 bytes - it's still single TCP-IP packet. So we can combine two small graphic files if their total is still less in size then 1k. This way we cut off 1 packet and 1 HTTP request. (At this point, reading about how much effort is needed to save 0.2 seconds, all readers are confident I'm crazy and need psychiatric attention %/ )
* Combine javascript and CSS files: put all external CSS into one file - less files means less HTTP requests.
* [http://www.creativyst.com/Prod/3/|Eliminate redundant markup] before uploading to the server, but leave read-frendly version locally for editing.
* [http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/shrinksafe/|Eliminate redundant markup] and [http://dean.edwards.name/packer/|pack] your custom CSS and Javascript files.

!!! Image optimisation
* [http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/|PNGCRUSH]

!!! Other compression
* Bitweaver's gzip function
* Smarty's { strip}
* Always set the height, width and alt-attribute of images, so the browser shows the page before the images are loaded. Same for tables.

!! Comparison
To compare bitweaver with other content management systems, pass their mainpages through [http://websiteoptimization.com|websiteoptimization.com's analyzer]:
||Link to page analyzed|Total HTTP Requests |Total Size |load time on 56k modem|remarks
__[http://www.bitweaver.org/wiki/|bitweaver]__|31|59368 bytes|11.83 seconds|20k CSS file is not calculated
__[http://tikiwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=TikiWiki|TikiWiki]__|21|189316 bytes|38.13 seconds|quite a lot of everything
__[http://www.joomla.org|Joomla]__|60|200149 bytes|40.29 seconds|over 100k HTTP images!
__[http://www.drupal.org|Drupal]__|51|85049 bytes|17.95 seconds|0 (ZERO!) Javascript
__[http://www.xoops.org|Xoops]__|30|131660 bytes|26.24 seconds|some broken links
__[http://www.xaraya.org|Xaraya]__|49|191770 bytes|40.82 seconds|60k CSS in 14 files!
__[http://www.e107.org|e107]__|73|238522 bytes|47.94 seconds|170k images! (which also means the actual frame is rather slick)
__[http://www.mediawiki.org/|mediawiki]__|29|84136 bytes|18.37 seconds|30kb CSS in 8 files - seems unnecessary for such a basic layout||
Please add other contenders to this table
with >30 HTTP requests and about 80k weight we are looking good :)
Page History
31 May 2010 (12:05 UTC)
While most othe content here is incredibly old, I updated WSO's result as a start.
Current • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source
View • Compare • Difference • Source