Less HTTP request the better it's, right ?
Regarding to Google best practice explanation, less unused css rules is also better.
The browser's CSS engine has to evaluate every rule contained in the file to see if the rule applies to the current page.
Even if a stylesheet is in an external file that is cached, rendering is blocked until the browser loads the stylesheet from disk.
In your opinion what's giving better performance :
One css file per page.
One general css that will be cached (even if there will be +70% unused css / but avoiding any other http requests).
Google speed best-practice
One of the important sentence to note from the Google best practice document is "Often, many web sites reuse the same external CSS file for all of their pages, even if many of the rules defined in it don't apply to the current page".
This needs to be taken into account as if the css file has additional code that is never going to be used if user does not visit the page for which this redundant code applies then we are certainly wasting the bandwidth which may not be a proper trade off for an additional HTTP request.
This leads to additional time to load the file plus the time wasted in evaluation of that redundant code.
Certainly using multiple files for just a single page (like different header/footer css files) would be a bad practice.
And as you know that there is not a perfect solution for any problem. You have to choose the best thing that suits your need.
So, I would say the decision to use multiple files or a single file is solely based on the overall structure of website and other trade offs.
Loading CSS is usually extremely quick. CSS blocking is something you will probably never catch. Whereas JavaScript could do so that you are visually aware that it's being downloaded. (white spaces while rendering the page).
In reality one CSS is good enough, because of a single HTTP request.
Optimization should go towards JavaScript, because this is where you can see the page slowing down. We are talking about a second-two of a difference or less here.
Here is a site where you can enter URL and it will check load times. In the graph below you can compare CSS load times.
Related
Specifically, does the browser cache only the text content of the stylesheet — so it doesn't have to fetch it again from the network — or does it also cache an internal representation it has of the contained CSS rules after parsing, so neither fetching nor parsing of a cached file is necessary?
If only the text content is cached, what are the benefits of caching a stylesheet over inlining it (where it cannot be cached)?
Caching is aimed at reducing load time by replacing the typically slow network download with the typically fast local file reading. As such, is a generic solution (you can cache any kind of asset, from HTML to CSS, JavaScript, PDFs, Excel...) and it can accomplish great time savings (normally seconds, even minutes for really slow networks). It also plays well with dynamic HTML.
What you propose is a very specific caching solution for a very specific data set (the nodes of an HTML document together with the CSS rules that apply to them) that typically needs milliseconds to process and can be continually changing thanks to JavaScript. It looks really difficult to implement, it'll be confusing for dynamic sites (when a page loads, everybody expects to get the initial HTML state, not whatever you were doing last time) and there's hardly any benefit on it. I'm not aware of any browser that has even tried it. There're certainly JIT compilers for JavaScript code, but nothing remotely similar to this.
If only the text content is cached, what are the benefits of caching a
stylesheet over inlining it (where it cannot be cached)?
I'd say cache itself is a valid benefit, isn't it? Generating inline CSS means more work for the webmaster (you either need to write server-side code that injects CSS files or enjoy the maintenance mess of not even having them). It also increases the size of HTML documents.
We all know that we're supposed to combine our CSS into one file, but per site or per page? I've found pro's and cons to both.
Here's the scenario:
Large site
CSS files broken out into one file for global styles and many for modules
Solution A: Combine ALL the CSS files for the whole site into one file:
Best part is that the one file would be cached on every page after the initial hit! The downside is that naming convention for your selectors (classes and id's) becomes more important as the chance for a namespace collision increases. You also need a system for styling the same module differently on separate pages. This leads to extra selectors in your CSS which is more work for the browser. This can cause problems on mobile devices like the iPad that don't have as much memory and processing power. If you're using media queries for responsive design, you're troubles compound even further as you add in the extra styles.
Solution B: Combine one CSS file per page template:
(By page template I mean one layout, but many different pages, like an article page)
In this scenario, you lose most of the issues with selecting described above, but you also lose some of the cache advantages. The worst part of this technique is that if you have the same styles on 2 different page templates then they'll be download twice, once for each page! For instance, this would happen with all your global files. :(
Summary:
So, as is common in programming, neither solution is perfect, but if anyone has run into this and found an answer I'd love to hear it! Especially, if you know of any techniques that help with the selector issue of Solution A.
Of course, combine and minify all the global styles, like your site template, typography, forms, etc. I would also consider combining the most important and most frequently used module styles into the global stylesheet, certainly the ones that you plan to use on the home page or entry point.
Solution B isn't a good one: the user ends up downloading the same content for each unique layout/page when you could have just loaded parts of it from the last page's cache. There is no advantage whatsoever to this method.
For the rest, I would leave them separate (and minified) and just load them individually as needed. You can use any of the preloading techniques described on the Yahoo! Developer network's "Best Practices for Speeding Up Your Web Site" guide to load the user's cache beforehand:
Preload Components
By preloading components you can take advantage
of the time the browser is idle and request components (like images,
styles and scripts) you'll need in the future. This way when the user
visits the next page, you could have most of the components already in
the cache and your page will load much faster for the user. There are actually several types of preloading:
Unconditional preload - as soon as onload fires, you go ahead and fetch some extra components. Check google.com for an example of how a
sprite image is requested onload. This sprite image is not needed on
the google.com homepage, but it is needed on the consecutive search
result page.
Conditional preload - based on a user action you make an educated guess where the user is headed next and preload accordingly. On
search.yahoo.com you can see how some extra components are requested
after you start typing in the input box.
As far as the conflicting selectors go: combining all the files and doing it any other way should not make a difference, this is a problem with your design. If possible, have all modules "namespaced" somehow, perhaps by using a common prefix for classes specific to the module, like blog-header or storefront-title. There is a concept called "Object-oriented CSS" that might reduce the need for lots of redundant CSS and module-specific class names, but this is normally done during the design phase, not something you can "tack on" to an existing project.
Less HTTP requests is better, but you have to take file size into consideration as well as user behavior and activity. The initial download time of the entry page is the most important thing, so you don't want to bog it down with stuff you won't use until later. If you really want to crunch the numbers, try a few different things and profile your site with Firebug or Chrome's developer tools.
i think you can make global.css that store style that need every template.
And you could make css in each template.
Or simply use css framework like lescss
I'm building a site with a lot of similar css between pages. I've decided that a good approach would be to have the css generated as strings by php functions (with parameters) and outputed as an internal stylesheet in every page that i serve. The benefits:
this way if i make a change it will reflect throughout the entire site without having to maintain duplicates
i can send only the necessary css for a certain page
it's better than having small css files and sending a lot of css headers at inclusion
the possibility that the content might be displayed before the stylesheet is loaded is gone
i can calculate dimensions by using parameters
i can create a layer that will minify the result received from these functions or serve cached minified css
I haven't seen this done anywhere else unfortunately so i'm thinking that this might be because of SEO. The generated internal stylesheet will be at around 15kb max (before minifying the stylesheet).
I need your opinion on this approach and your thoughts about the impact a long internal stylesheet will have on SEO.
Many thanks.
Not an answer to your question (which is interesting enough!), but most of your arguments for inline CSS are wrong. An external style sheet is always the better and faster solution.
The first point you can handle by adding a version number to the style sheet's file name
The second point is moot because an external file gets cached, so no additional requests
The third point is moot for the same reason
The fourth point won't really matter once the style sheet is cached
The fifth point can be sorted using inline CSS for only the properties that need to be
updated dynamically - usually a tiny fraction of the whole CSS code base
The sixth point I don't get.
Go for an external style sheet. Just make sure it gets served with the correct caching headers!
Like long blocks of inline JavaScript, they are ignored.
Bots look at the content, not the layout. If you want a better representation of what they see, try the Lynx browser.
Unfortunately they will not be cached on the user's browser either, as external CSS and JS are, making each page load slower. It is actually more efficient to have a large external stylesheet than server up related "css snippets" with each page.
Assuming by 'internal stylesheet' you mean inline CSS included using the <style> tag, I'd recommend against this. If you use an external stylesheet, visitors download it once on the first request, and it will then be cached. By including all of your CSS inline, you're adding page weight to every single HTML request.
Although it might seem more efficient to just serve CSS for the current page, or split your CSS into lots of different page-specific stylesheets; in practice it's usually better just to have one stylesheet. Serving this compressed and with appropriate expires headers will almost always be faster than the alternatives.
Regarding SEO, robots ignore CSS, so this won't have any affect. If you had so much CSS that it substantially slowed down loading of your page, in theory you might start having issues, but you would need an inhuman amount of inline CSS before this could even potentially be an issue.
To the extent of my knowledge, your CSS sheet plays a minimal role in SEO, what is more important is your HTML markup and execution.
Following the order of '< h1 > - < h5 >' for your heading tags, with accompanying '< p >' tags instead of '< font >' or similar approaches is what will effect a web crawlers ability to recognise and prioritise the content in your page.
While you can use CSS to hide paragraph that you only want to appear in search engines and similar techniques it has little importance compared to the HTML structure.
All benefits you said apply. Search engines doesn't care too much about CSS and javascript (of course, if your page takes too long to wrap and send, this will affect, but I don't think it is the case).
I've seen this kind of solution before, but people tend to avoid use scripting to serve, once you can use media queries instead, writing just only one external stylesheet. I think you should take a look on this.
However, I see you are trying to optimize the CSS sent. This is good, but talking about 80k for all sheets, makes me think if you are not over complicating the rules.
Well, as last opinion, you can cache many different responses and make use of "canonical" thing on page head.
As far as I know, these days there are two main techniques used for including CSS in a website.
A) Provide all the CSS used by the website in one (compressed) file
B) Provide the CSS for required by the elements on the page that is currently being viewed only
Positives for A: The entire CSS used on the site is cached on first visit via 1 http request
Negatives for A: if it's a big file, it will take a long time to load initially
Positives for B: Faster initial load time
Negatives for B: More HTTP requests, more files to cache
Is there anything (fundamental) that I am missing here?
Profile it. It depends on the way your users use your site.
If it's a web application and your users are likely to interact with it a lot and see most of the layout you designed, you probably want to use a single CSS which is loaded once and then stored in the browser cache. The first time overhead is negligible in this case.
If most of your users come with a cold cache and just look at two or three pages, separate CSS files will probably improve their experience.
You can't tell without having a look at what the users actually do.
Even a largish CSS file, gzipped, is tiny compared to a lot of other things (like images, movies, etc.) that get downloaded. The only real reason to break up CSS into separate files is to swap in special rules to make certain browsers behave (I'm looking at you, IE).
There is no A or B, it's always a trade-off between the two. For example: you'd want the front-page to load as quickly as possible, so you only request what's necessary. For the following pages you request the remaining CSS. A total of 2 requests.
In essence, you're creating packages/groups of related CSS. By dynamically combining and compressing these packages, you can create a maintainable structure of files. This also enables you experiment with the best combination of speed, performance, requests and bandwidth...
This whole story also applies to JavaScript files, since the same trade-offs can be made.
What's better?
Writing one css file
Writing more css files
What's better?
Tracking, keeping 1 css file updated
Tracking, keeping more css files updated
What's esier?
Making decisions what to insert into one css file
Deciding what to put in every of your css files
What's the cost of generating each individual css file compared to generating one global css file.
Just wanted to get a few opinions really, I'm trying to increase the loading speed of my site, and one way that Google pagespeed has suggested is to remove the unused CSS from my CSS file for each page.
At the moment I am using one master CSS file for every page on the site.
My question is would having individual CSS files for each page make overall loading times quicker ? I guess the first page would load quicker, but then each page would have a different CSS file which could potentially end up taking longer over a whole site visit ?
Also pagespeed seems to warn against including multiple CSS files so I guess I can't really 'layer' them up...
If the CSS file is cached then including multiple files will not be an advantage.
Note
For performance rules regarding CSS you can
Try minifying your CSS
Optimize CSS Sprites
Avoid Filters
Avoid CSS Expressions
For more detailed reading go through this
Best Practices for Speeding Up Your Web Site
There are two optimisation directives that contradict each other in this case. Of course you should reduce the size of the files if possible, but you should also have as few requests as possible. Using a global style sheet reduces the number of requests, but it means a larger file.
You just have to look into where your needs are. If you need to reduce the initial load time, you should move styles out of the global style sheet. If you need to reduce the number of requests, you should use a global style sheet rather than individual page style sheets.
Download and install YSlow, it will give you an accurate picture of how fast your page is as well as practical steps to improve performance.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Run your CSS through a filter to strip comments and whitespace, be aware of small shortcuts like padding: 1em 3em .5em 5px etc, make sure the file is being cached properly, and sent from your server with gzipping, and you'll be fine. CSS is usually such a small fraction of the payload, it's not worth losing sleep over.
The only time where I'd split up a CSS file (for delivery to the client) would be if there were large sections of my site which called for unique styles where most people would never venture: eg, an administration section.
Do a little thinking about how the typical user will use your sight. If (like many sites) the average user only views a single page before moving on, then having dedicated CSS files for each page may just be worth it.
However, in the vast majority of cases, a single css file would definitely be the preferred solution
CSS files are cached by browsers anyway, so either you have a single file or many split, it won't matter after all of them got loaded on the first use.
Use just one CSS for all pages. Once your css is cached then there will be no overhead of downloading that css again and again.
Also, ad adam said Minify your css
DustMeSelectors is the extension you need. It will go through all of your site (and providing all of these are inter-linked) will fetch which selectors in your css are not used anywhere.