Time for a rant

Here is a quick thought, all addons submitted to XF that have a $ cost do so with XF holding the code in escrow and if the developer stops supporting the Addon, the code can be given to another developer to support and derived income from...just a thought!!!
You can't do that. It's not only time consuming and a lot of responsibility, but it will result in a lot but it will result in a lot of legal issues. Not many developers would agree to that at all.

Instead, choose wisely on the developer you choose to work with.
 
how good actually XF performs (better than any other forum software)
XF, compared against say VB5 and IPB, is better in performance. No disagreement there. Done those tests myself... XF wins.

Should that mean it shouldn't strive to do better towards its end user? Admins are the end user for XF. If admins struggle to deliver to the ultimate end user, then at the end of the day, XF lose.

IMO, the three largest factors for a forum today are, admin spam management, user simplicity and end performance. Someone with no server skills, not much money, need to be able to buy the software, put it on a shared host using SATA drives, add some add-ons, make it pretty, and get < 3 second page loads from it with nothing more than browser caching. Furthering performance from that standard is then at the admins concern, where one begins shaving hundredths of a second at a time tweaking server aspects, reverse proxies and so forth.
 
On images... images need to be compressed and scaled automatically to suit key system settings, so if someone uploads a mobile phone full size picture, it scales it, compresses it, and loads the optimal viewing size image only dependent upon device type used. Mobiles should only be downloading a scaled version of an image for the devices capability... not a CSS scaled version, which still means downloading far more data into a page than need be.

Take a look and share some of your thoughts here:
IMAGES - Different size/quality for different devices
 
Should that mean it shouldn't strive to do better towards its end user? Admins are the end user for XF. If admins struggle to deliver to the ultimate end user, then at the end of the day, XF lose.
I agree with you. No disagreement with what you said. With what I disagreed was, what part of XF is not doing well enough.

Even though XF could do better in performance, it is still on a good level. As you also say it is the fastest one compared to the others. Yeah, it can be more faster and better, I am with you with that. But again, we have already the fastest on the market here. So instead of focusing on something where they are already good or okay, they should focus on something where they are lacking something.

Making XF more faster than now won't have a noticable effect to your site. Sure, maybe instead of 2.7 secs it will be 2.0 secs. Ok. But people won't leave Facebook because now your forum is 0.7 secs faster. We need something to attract people, some content/service to make them stay. Something what they can't find anywhere else. Discussion I can do anywhere else. Of course the platform should have fast load times, but that isn't our concern at the moment, as the numbers are okay in that matter.
 
I honestly believe the only way forward for forums... is live threads. The person who wrote their piece, can then see that someone is live responding to them, and thus they know they have a response coming soon, and will feel far more engaged to communicate via forums IMHO.

For the mobile world we're turning into, no... it doesn't. XF is made to add-on to... and even standard XF isn't close to optimal for the mobile web.

XF needs to have an output system that combines ALL JS and CSS into a single file AND that system needs to incorporate ALL additional styles and add-ons a user adds. It needs to be compressed, minified, and output as a single file. People get all jumpy about this... they say it can't be done, causes issues, blah blah blah... but it can be done, is being done (especially in wordpress) and works flawlessly. Options for control of how this works is the key. When a single piece of JS doesn't play nice, then you want to be able to singularly pull that and load it by itself OR input it direct into the page (depending on size) for inline loading where it can be minified and compressed with the page.

Lazy loading needs to be default in XF. A mobile page doesn't need to be waiting for images not seen for 5 minutes of reading, to be awaiting loading just to start the page.

On images... images need to be compressed and scaled automatically to suit key system settings, so if someone uploads a mobile phone full size picture, it scales it, compresses it, and loads the optimal viewing size image only dependent upon device type used. Mobiles should only be downloading a scaled version of an image for the devices capability... not a CSS scaled version, which still means downloading far more data into a page than need be.

Yes, XF is good, BUT, since its inception the world has gone more mobile every year. Stats are progressively shifting each year to more mobile than desktop viewing. The best we have for mobile viewing is wi-fi, but the standard is 4G, and that means everything needs to be optimal for mobile downloading and viewing.

This is the way things are now, this is absolutely how any site who wants to compete for market share in the next few years needs to be. If you can't do it from a desktop style, the system needs to cater automatic mobile detection where a pure mobile style is delivered, where everything is automatically scaled and literally removed, so the minimal features are delivered for maximum performance to mobile users.

On average, any page that takes over 2 seconds to load, you lose 10% of your user audience just due to slow loading content.

Software performance is everything now, and only becoming more fundamental. IMHO, wordpress is leading the way in this area, along with some key developers. Acknowledged, this is not WP, nor does it have its development following... but if one is rebuilding the software from the ground up already, these are essential to success today.

Joomla took a huge dive due to its outdated, slow, underlying foundation of code and lack of performance. They shifted primarily to wordpress... and newcomers like Ghost have a steady influx due to meeting and ticking all these performance boxes for simplicity and speed, out of the box.

I fully agree with this.
90% + of my site'ss users are on mobile. It's a headache for me always trying to suit mobile users. I need to cater for all, but specifically moreso for mobile phone users/tablet etc.
We rely heavily on media and profiles - it can be slow and sluggish when on 4G let alone 3G. Wifi of course, different ball game. But so many of our users are on mobiles, it's something I have paid through the nose for, to keep changing and adjusting to make sure my mobile users get the maximum performance they can.
We're a niche site, out of the box XF didn't work for us, and we had to modify a lot and have huge scale custom work made for us. But now it works and works well, mobile side of things needs addressing and it's a serious issue.
The biggest complaint I have from my side of things, is CSS scaling of images, not compressing and then outputting based on device.
As mentioned, we know things like this are possible as it's already being done.

I will say and by no means an expert to XF and the team; Address mobile users and mobile issues. You will most likely sell a lot more in return.
Just my 2p worth, but I genuinely do agree that enough isn't being done here for the mobile market (as of yet) and sadly, that's really where it's at.

Interesting thread and good sides to the debate too.
:)
 
Making XF more faster than now won't have a noticable effect to your site.
Uhm... yer, it will actually. If you go search out the information that Google themselves release, for every hundredth of a second faster your page loads, that is an automatic increase in their rankings against a similar page that is slower, purely because Google praise performance as a significant factor. They want to deliver their searchers fast pages, because they too recognise and publicly talk about the mobile market, and how it is now dominant over desktop. Without the core abilities that are either done totally, or make capable for third parties to do after the fact, then it makes it hard for XF users to compete with Facebook groups or such, because performance is difficult to attain at any level and limitations are imposed that just shouldn't be in todays mobile world.

Facebook pages load amazingly fast and are mobile optimised. The most successful wordpress themes today, are mobile optimised, most of which literally just don't load components you select so for mobiles / tablets. Some use crappy CSS to hide elements, but many are using physical replacements and retractions in the code to literally not load an element on a mobile when you select that element. Yes, these are third parties... BUT, wordpress core allows these things to be done. To my knowledge, XF templates do not, and only allow CSS hide, not actual removal on template generation, so only what you want is output.

There is zero point in CSS hiding, as it doesn't change the mobile performance as everything is still being downloaded, instead of only what is needed.
 
I found it interesting that Google is now endorsing within their console: https://www.ampproject.org as the new mobile standard. Further forward thinking or just another failed project / endorsement?

Based on the discussion in this thread... is this the way forward? Have a HTML5 template delivered to everything not mobile, and then AMP automatically for everything mobile that calls to the server?
 
I will say and by no means an expert to XF and the team; Address mobile users and mobile issues. You will most likely sell a lot more in return.
Just my 2p worth, but I genuinely do agree that enough isn't being done here for the mobile market (as of yet) and sadly, that's really where it's at.
Just a slight necro bump. Mobile users are king...right now.. ;)
 
Top Bottom