Jump to content

sadams101

Clients
  • Posts

    770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Agree
    sadams101 got a reaction from z929669 in CSS question...or disappointment   
    I also focus on good content. Content does not fall under the purview of IPB's software engineers, which is who this thread is addressed to. This thread is focused on IPB taking away the ability to easily modify the CSS files, which in turn makes it very difficult for those who do actually care about site speed to be able to do anything to address it.
  2. Agree
    sadams101 got a reaction from Afrodude in CSS question...or disappointment   
    I also focus on good content. Content does not fall under the purview of IPB's software engineers, which is who this thread is addressed to. This thread is focused on IPB taking away the ability to easily modify the CSS files, which in turn makes it very difficult for those who do actually care about site speed to be able to do anything to address it.
  3. Like
    sadams101 got a reaction from Adlago in CSS question...or disappointment   
    The conclusions of your article seem to support focusing on improving site speed:
     
     
  4. Like
    sadams101 reacted to Adlago in CSS question...or disappointment   
    This comparison is incorrect, that's why I wrote it.
    Below is an objective comparison from a test now from my friend's site @sadams101
    1. IPS default theme - without ad blocks included
    - there are no reported web vitals indicators in the test because it does not pass the test successfully.
    Site load test

     
    2. Test with a used theme - after numerous changes in the CSS loading method, without changing the content CSS rules, All advertising blocks included - more than 6-7 objects in a page.

    And of course - web vitals test

    Do you think it makes sense?
    Each site has its own specificity in displaying its content - (how much value content has - that's another topic). That's why every site uses css rules of different importance. In order to speed up the loading of all resources, it is essential to speed up the loading of the used rules, and postpone the unused css rules...
    This is impossible only using custom.css. This is also impossible using designer mode.
    And that is the point of this topic of mine.
    I understand the desire to improve the entire process of IPS development - but this process is slow and requires a lot of analysis and a lot of work.
    Therefore, it is better to IPS restore access to all available css files in ACP.
    When the IPS offers a successfully working project for the idea CSS to CDN - let this project go through online tests - who wishes to participate - and then go in for release...
    I think so.
  5. Like
    sadams101 reacted to Adlago in CSS question...or disappointment   
    And you think please. This topic does not address changes to CSS rules. What this thread is about is being able to other loading  this CSS...
    Think for yourself - how much time does a server use to process php requests, and the CSS minimizer that IPS has implemented (this is a particularly good hit) for all possible  external CSS? Even the fact that all external CSS are downloaded in parallel does not change the delay in page rendering. Yes, when a site has no special claims for this - it is irrelevant.
    But when a site relies on advertising revenue - every millisecond of delay is a lost cent.
    The point of my topic is that the CSS that is used by a site (and this in volumetric weight is about 15% of the total volume of available external CSS) should be loaded as a priority.
    This is possible only if you move used CSS rules for each site (for each site it is individual - according to the needs of the community) in one common external CSS, which you understand yourself will load quickly... All other CSS rules in files, in which they are created can be moved before the close body tag... They are not important for site rendering - and can load with low priority...
    Site speed, which is strangely underestimated - costs money, and any site using ads knows this very well...
  6. Like
    sadams101 got a reaction from Percival in CSS question...or disappointment   
    I can assure you that @Adlago knows how and why there is a need to edit IPB's core site files, and that we know how to upgrade after doing so.
    The reason we have to edit them is because of IPS' ongoing site speed issues, which they are always at least 2 years behind in addressing, for example this thread:

     
    IPB is mistaken if it believes that CDN's will help with site speed. After going back and forth from a CDN I found they do not help. Most of the speed issues with IPB software are inherent in the IPB application, and as @Adlago has pointed out, have to do with how IPB's JS and CSS files written and served.
    This is why some people need to tinker with these files, not for fun, but for speed...no CDN (if we could achieve this without editing the core files we would):

     
     
  7. Like
    sadams101 reacted to DudeThatsErin in CSS question...or disappointment   
    The claim of the CDN is a load of bull****. If you needed to secure a site/speed up a site/etc. for a CDN/with a CDN there is CloudFlare and other CDNs that don't limit customers in this way.
    There was ZERO reason for this change other than Invision wanting to collect customer data and check for unlicensed websites in a "more efficient" way. Any other claims are false.
    This is NOT customer friendly in ANY WAY. The claim of "because it is CSS means you should be able to make changes no matter what" is false. Eventually you won't be able to overwrite something and then you are screwed. I don't care what IPS says.
    I am never recommending IPS to anyone ever again and I am never using it anymore. They don't care about customers anymore. They are just here for the bottom line screw everything else.
  8. Like
    sadams101 reacted to Adlago in CSS question...or disappointment   
    @Rikki Reading this thread, which I created because "you cut off my quick glance" - I am left with the clear impression that you are making a huge mistake.
    Most of your clients are not interested in this at all.
    But the few "crazy like me" seekers and experimenters you want to banish. Why?
    It's best to ban the themes too - let's all use only one - it will be heaven for your support...
  9. Like
    sadams101 reacted to DudeThatsErin in CSS question...or disappointment   
    This is very disappointing. I was trying to use this service to replace Shopify as Shopify is expensive so I was using the CSS files + editing the HTML files HEAVILY to hack together a theme that looks like a similar company's website.
    Now, I can't do that. I feel as if I wasted my money as I would never have purchased if I even knew this was in the pipeline 6 months ago. Definitely not renewing. This is too expensive to not be able to mess with the files.
  10. Like
    sadams101 reacted to Kirill N in CSS question...or disappointment   
    That’s understandable but we need to be able to VIEW them to know what we are supposed to edit
  11. Like
    sadams101 reacted to The Old Man in CSS question...or disappointment   
    Absolutely agree, hiding the CSS templates is ridiculous! It was like a live, instant reference, so useful and tbh having realised, I'm unwilling to update the last of my live sites. Having to enter and exit designers mode is no good, it's slow, clunky, buggy, and you even advise us not to do it on live sites. Who in their right mind would do that when they need to make some quick changes to custom css templates or look up some css to refresh their memory?
    By all means, remove edit permissions if you absolutely must, but what's the harm in leaving the templates read only and searchable?
  12. Like
    sadams101 reacted to Matt in CSS question...or disappointment   
    Indeed we are! We have plans to change how we package up JS to make it smaller and faster.
  13. Like
    sadams101 reacted to Kirill N in CSS question...or disappointment   
    Why can’t we just view the files in the theme editor in the AdminCP?
    This change makes creating new themes 10x harder. I now pretty much have to rewrite everything that I want to customize, but that would be at least manageable if I could search for a class/id in the editor, copy the default code and paste it into custom.css. But now I need to spend 10x much time searching for the code in the files to figure out what to edit.
  14. Like
    sadams101 reacted to PatrickRQ in CSS question...or disappointment   
    This sound like a preparation of taking a control of self-hosted solutions and eventually enforcing whatever you think of 😞
    Watching your other moves around cloud based solutions I started to have worries about upcoming future.
  15. Agree
    sadams101 got a reaction from The Old Man in CSS question...or disappointment   
    I agree that it would be much better to restore the ability to edit CSS templates.
  16. Like
    sadams101 got a reaction from Kirill N in CSS question...or disappointment   
    I agree that it would be much better to restore the ability to edit CSS templates.
  17. Like
    sadams101 reacted to Ryan Ashbrook in Strange php error log entries   
    As Marc mentioned, this is likely an out of date theme. Specifically, the forums > topics > topic template. If you open that template in your theme, click the Variables button and make sure it looks like this:
    $topic, $comments, $question=NULL, $votes=array(), $nextUnread=NULL, $pagination=NULL, $topicVotes=array()  
  18. Like
    sadams101 got a reaction from MeMaBlue in (NB41) Enhanced Advertisements   
    Right...I think we all understand this. He's not been heard from since Jan 2021.
    Unfortunately I'm unable to wait until he's back here to update this application, as I need it updated for 4.6 and php 8. Some of you may be in the same boat.
    If anyone is interested in a version of this that is PHP 8 and IPB 4.6 compatible, please contact @DawPi
  19. Agree
    sadams101 reacted to The Old Man in Time for an IPS4 performance review/update?   
    I don't know about you, but I'm wondering if it's perhaps overdue that IPS got stuck into a huge performance and speed based review and implement it in the next medium sized update! I think a lot has changed in recent years in relation to site performance. Core Vitals in Lighthouse as many admins will be aware are now much more important in terms of SEO ranking, performance isn't just for the obsessed enthusiasts any longer!
    Google Search Console tells me that on one of my IPS Communities, my Mobile Pagespeed test result sucks, just 28%-30% at present, so I started checking a few things under the hood. I like to keep my sites high performing, so I was quite surprised it was so low. 
    One thing I found out in minutes looking at the optimisation list and then checking my IPS configuration is that if you have the IPS Lazy Loading feature enabled, it doesn't apply to your uploaded images in Advertisements or Post Author Member Group Icons. Both are shown in my topic view so I get scored down on mobile in particular.
    I think it's now time that Native Lazy Loading was offered, either as a choice or as the default if enabled.
    Also where possible IPS should support Local WebP conversion via the Task Manager.
    I know some of us sometimes bash IPS for not delivering more obvious updates like Gallery, Blog, Pages and Commerce improvements for the sake of instead quick things like disabling features but IPS4 is quite a huge behemoth these days, no matter your pricey VPS, CiC, use of Redis pools etc.
    More performance improvements I'd like to see considered include...
    (Now admittedly I'm basing this list on a similar big audit that another website framework I invested in conducted and implemented last year. These are the options you can now simply toggle off/on as a result in their Dashboard. They can make a huge difference to bloat.)
    Dynamic Modular Framework
    Enable this to allow the IPS Framework to only load code that are actually used on the page, and process the logic for the features in actual use.
    Dynamic CSS
    Dynamic CSS could greatly reduce CSS file size by dynamically generating only the styles and assets necessary for the features and modules you actually use. This eliminates most if not all CSS file bloat and greatly improves load times.
    Dynamic Icons
    Font Awesome is 2 generations behind. The FA4 icon font could be broken up into various subsets. These subsets are loaded only when needed based on the modules and features used on each page. If you need access to the entire icon font on all pages (for example, if you are using lots of FA icons in a custom theme or want to allow members to insert them via the post editor), then you could disable this option and load the entire icon font library on all pages.
    Load Dynamic Stylesheet In-line
    This option dequeues the IPS style.css file and prints the needed contents in-line. This removes a render blocking request and improves the PageSpeed scores of individual pages. However, it also prevents the style.css file from being cached. Since the stylesheet is often smaller when dynamic or critical, it could be recommended to keep this option enabled. Accepted there are some potential CSP-related security concerns with inline CSS an or JS.
    Critical CSS
    Critical CSS greatly improves website load times and Google PageSpeed scores by deferring non-critical styles and eliminating render-blocking CSS requests. Critical CSS often covers what most users see when first loading the page, so called 'above the fold' content.
    Critical Threshold Height
    When Critical CSS is enabled, IPS would determine an "above the fold threshold" and defer all styles for elements below the fold. However, this threshold is just a estimate and can vary on different devices. Increasing threshold height will deffer fewer styles, resulting in slightly slower load times but less of a chance for Cumulative Layout Shifts to occur. If you are experiencing CLS issues you can then increase or lower the threshold 'height' via a drop-down low, medium, high setting.
    Dynamic JavaScript Libraries
    When enabled, IPS would only load external JavaScript libraries when they are needed by a specific sections or modules on the page. This removes unused JavaScript from the main scripts bundle and improves load times.
    Improve Google Fonts Loading
    Enable caching of Google Fonts and load them inline. This reduces render-blocking requests and improves page load times. Also presents an opportunity to switch to the Google Fonts API, to offer a dynamic dropdown list to allow admin to choose from all available GFonts. The Task Manager could check for and cache new versions of selected fonts in use weekly.
    Limit Google Fonts Support For Legacy Browsers
    Enabling this option will lower the size of Google Fonts and improve load times, however it will limit Google Fonts support in some very old browsers. You can turn this off to increase support for losers insisting on their older insecure browsers at a slight cost to performance.
    Defer jQuery And jQuery Migrate
    When possible, jQuery and jQuery Migrate could be moved to the body to speed up load times. If a third party plugin registers jQuery as a dependency, it would be moved back to the head.
    Enqueue jQuery Compatibility Script
    Some third party scripts may be incorrectly enqueued without declaring jQuery as dependency. If jQuery is deferred, these scripts could break. If you are experiencing console errors after enabling the "Defer jQuery And jQuery Migrate" option, you can enable this option, which will load an additional compatibility script that will attempt to solve the issue. (You can turn this feature off if everything is working fine without it).
    Defer Additional Third Party Scripts
    Warning: This can cause JavaScript errors in some cases and should be used with care. When enabled, scripts registered by plugins and themes will be deferred to improve performance and jQuery will always be loaded in the body.
  20. Like
    sadams101 got a reaction from Ibai in Webc images for Pages article images   
    When adding an image to an article in Pages, which is probably accounts for 90% of the images I use in articles in Pages, I see this when uploading the image:
    Accepted file types: gif, jpeg, jpe, jpg, png However, when using the insert tool to insert an image within the text of an article I see this:
    Accepted file types: gif, jpeg, jpe, jpg, png, webp I guess I am wondering why webp would be excluded as an option for the article's main image?
     
  21. Like
    sadams101 got a reaction from Ibai in CSS question...or disappointment   
    I agree that it would be much better to restore the ability to edit CSS templates.
  22. Agree
    sadams101 got a reaction from z929669 in CSS question...or disappointment   
    For years IPB has promised site speed increases, and every one that you've delivered to date has turned out to be too little, too late--at least for anyone who is concerned at all about their Google rankings.
    Here is a speed test of this very forum thread--and you use CDN with zero ads running--you score a 51%, which is an F for FAILURE:

     
    After mostly CSS changes made with the ability to edit CSS files directly--the feature you just took away from everyone (and with the help of @Adlago), here is a similar forum thread on my site--I have no CDN and am running a large number of graphical ads:

    What you see here is a site with mostly CSS changes, and it scores 25% faster than a site that is on a CDN with no ads. How is that possible? Perhaps you need to hire @Adlago because apparently speed improvements are still not on your radar, and now you've gone out of your way to strip the ability for those of us who actually care about this issue to be able to do something about it ourselves.
  23. Agree
    sadams101 got a reaction from Genadii Skaraev in CSS question...or disappointment   
    I agree that it would be much better to restore the ability to edit CSS templates.
  24. Agree
    sadams101 got a reaction from z929669 in CSS question...or disappointment   
    I also cannot believe that you've removed this, and, after more than 15 years, and also looking at alternative boards to import my site into...totally unacceptable!
    Your site speed is absolutely horrid...the only way I've been able to make my site get even average speed scores has been through extensive modification of CSS--now you've removed this ability from my--WHY??!!
  25. Agree
    sadams101 got a reaction from SeNioR- in Webc images for Pages article images   
    When adding an image to an article in Pages, which is probably accounts for 90% of the images I use in articles in Pages, I see this when uploading the image:
    Accepted file types: gif, jpeg, jpe, jpg, png However, when using the insert tool to insert an image within the text of an article I see this:
    Accepted file types: gif, jpeg, jpe, jpg, png, webp I guess I am wondering why webp would be excluded as an option for the article's main image?
     
×
×
  • Create New...