Google and the billion-dollar HTML tag
Google's Marissa Mayer reminded Velocity attendees that pretty rounded corners on HTML images are counterproductive if loading speed is reduced.
(Credit: Tom Krazit/CNET News)SAN JOSE, Calif.--Those who think HTML tags are low-level technology should realize they can have a huge impact on the bottom line.
By finding an HTML tag that allowed Google to offer ads on the right hand side of its search page without delaying page loading times, Google was able to cash in without harming the user experience, said Marissa Mayer, vice president for search products and experience, at the O'Reilly Velocity 2009 conference. There aren't a whole lot of "billion-dollar HTML tags," as Mayer put it, but she spent about 45 minutes Wednesday morning encouraging Web developers to focus on speed.
Google laid the seeds for Mayer's talk Tuesday with the launch of a new Web page that gives Web publishers some help in making their pages load more quickly. Expanding on ideas she presented last year at Google I/O, Mayer told the crowd that "small changes can make a big difference" in how visitors perceive the speed and quality of a Web site.
For example, Google began compressing images in Google Maps, which improved load performance by two to three times for users on slower connections, which still comprise about 12 percent of those who use Google Maps, she said. Likewise, switching from an image version of the Google Checkout shopping cart to an HTML version saved time despite the complicated code needed to properly display the graphic.
As always, Google's goal in sharing these tips with Web developers is to improve the user experience of the Web at large, which Google believes will lead to a greater number of searches on its site, and therefore more money, Mayer said.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
Visual information is one of the quickest ways to absorb information and sometimes Google websites are just too damned sparse. I want good speed but honestly I want a better and more intuitive experience before that. Its all right for Google to say they spent resources on changing images to tags or what not but most companies cannot afford those kind of resources.
Long complaint short, not all of Google's 'tips' should be taken as canon just because they are an enormously successful company. It's in Googles best interest to have links and minimal images and what not but it need not be the case for a product page etc. where information and easy accessibility are paramount.
Just wanted my two cents.
However, for the rest of us articles such as this is just a curiosity. Our "world" lets us design more elegantly/indulgently.
The problem here is that Google is living 6 sigma out on the bell curve. No one else in the world serves up the number of pages per day that Google does. So then Googlers fall into the classic trap of assuming that everyone else should 'learn from them', because they're 'normal' - but they're not normal. They're hypergeeks who have the time and money resources to pour into tuning stuff down to a gnat's a**, and who justify that because of the extremely, extremely unusual situation they're in.
I'm not saying that some bits here aren't valuable. Sure, if you can rid of a image tag here and there, it will help. Just don't blindingly follow what Google says because their problem set is very, very different than absolutely everyone else in the world. It's sort of like saying that the home security solution for everyone in the world should be to have a full-time Secret Service detail. The benefit doesn't outweigh the cost.
Cheers,
- Bill
Graphically intense design is fine for multimedia sites, software, and the like, but it does hold back informational websites.
Come on - we want to know!
<div> based layouts are just as bad but some developers just keep looking for some form of koolaid to drink to help them think they are kool Studity in motion.
In the H3 tag, the image is a JPEG, when it could be a GIF. Same quality output (using all the colors) as a GIF would reduce the file size of the cart by a full half! 715 bytes as compared to 15,328 bytes.
I agree that one of the reasons why Google blew past the competition was that they had a nice clean, elegant design that was extremely efficient, but the Google Checkout example may not have been the best to use with that hideous header...and without explaining what is meant by using HTML to render the cart instead of an image.
I'm guessing what was meant, was that using CSS for the shopping cart image was more efficient, and it is in the case of the H3 tags, but in terms of the graphic itself...it's amateur hour for Google.
<tr>
<td>
<h2>Sponsored Links</h2>
<ol>
<li> <h3> <a href="link"> </h3> </li>
....
</ol>
</td>
<tr>
</table>
<table> is the tag!
If web sites are faster then they can do previews without having to resort to images.
Faster is better, but websites need to be functional first. If they are fast but a pain to use then no one will bother.
Also, I'm part of the <table> fan club. Since the web is all boxes and tables are all boxes, why do it differently.
- by ahickey June 25, 2009 2:17 AM PDT
- Also - if HTML is faster then it can run more effectively on less powerful devices.
- Reply to this comment
-
(21 Comments)I remeber way back when that most of the time I spent waiting for web pages to load was due to the rendering and not the downloading of the page.
If the pages rendered more quickly then suddenly web apps become as fast as desktop apps.
Oh yeah -Google is all about web apps.