Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Substack will spend $1 million to support “up to 30” local news writers
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Sept. 23, 2014, 1:15 p.m.
LINK: speakerdeck.com  ➚   |   Posted by: Joshua Benton   |   September 23, 2014

Page speed is an underrated part of user experience. A fast website is a website readers will return to more often and feel better about using. (Add WPO to SEO and SMO in your mental acronym storage case.)

We’ve shared before about efforts at The Guardian and The New York Times to get faster, and now we’ve got a new slide deck from Times developer Eitan Koningsburg on the sometimes counterintuitive things they’ve done to speed up NYTimes.com (including the earlier [thanks, Allen] strange-sounding-to-me use of an intentional blocking script to load ads better):

The current mantra in performance thinking is “Tools not Rules.” The premise is simple: The path to faster websites is not only about fast requests, but how they interact with paints, animations, and script execution. But tools are only part of the solution. What The New York Times discovered is that performance is about truly understanding your product and users, and the sum total of your site. Following this approach can lead to surprising results.

The New York Times underwent a major redesign that involved a rewrite of the entire technology stack. The Product team not only bought into the idea that performance should be a goal, but mandated that it be part of the product’s success. While we implemented many of the community’s best practices, our biggest wins were a little surprising, and at first glance, counter to community best practices. Front-end software architect Eitan Koningsburg covers those changes, what worked, what didn’t, and how we got there.

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Substack will spend $1 million to support “up to 30” local news writers
“This is not a grants program, nor is it inspired by philanthropic intent.”
Would you pay $34.99 a month to get news from Reuters.com? That’s their hope
Who deems Reuters.com so essential that they’ll pay more than two Netflixes a month for it?
Philanthropic support is a small but growing revenue stream for The Guardian, reaching a record-breaking $9M last year
What does it mean for other news organizations hoping to attract institutional support?