So I know generally it is not best practice to have multiple css files placed within the head tag of your site due to the increased number of http requests you would have to make. Therefore it has been recommended to me to just use one big css file instead of smaller ones. However, wouldn't it make sense to break up that css file into separate, smaller files, and then link those individual css files only on the pages where they are needed? So say my homepage had its own set of styles, and my about page obviously will differ from my homepage with it's own set of styles. So why not link a homepage.css file to the html homepage and then only link an about.css file to the html about page? There is still only one http request being made in each case, and you can have much smaller css files. Is there something I'm missing?
CSS is cached, so that if you were to link to your big CSS file on your homepage (lets say domain.com/css/homepage.css) then the user travels from your homepage to the about page and it calls the same homepage.css, but you're browser then says "wait! I already have it!" and it skips the HTTP request for the file, resulting in no additional requests.
Where as you have a CSS file for each page, there would be a request for nearly identical CSS files that is wasting bandwidth needlessly. It may not seem like a big deal on smaller sites, but bigger sites with 1000s of requests happening, the extra bandwidth adds up and results in higher operating costs.
The only exception to this is when you're using a responsive framework of some sort (like bootstrap) where editing the main bootstrap file is either impossible (through CDNs) or impractical and hard-to-maintain (i.e. when bootstrap updates you'll lose all your customization), which in this case you would have one bootstrap.min.css file and one custom.css that allows you to keep your customizations while only increasing bandwidth slightly.
Related
I like the idea of encapsulating my CSS into separate files. This also brings the added advantage of being able to easily minify the CSS. But I know performance is negatively impacted by the overhead needed to pull these separate files from the server.
To address the latter point, people often suggest inlining the style or at least putting the CSS in the HEAD of the html document. I'm not going to inline because then editing the style becomes a nightmare. I can consider putting it in the head to increase performance, but I do not want to put it in there minified. I won't be able to read it, and it will be a pain to have to adjust the CSS once minified.
So my question is, What is the better option -- in terms of performance -- between these two?
Minified external CSS file
CSS placed in the HEAD but not minified
You are not considering browser-side caching in your evaluation. It is almost ALWAYS better to serve up CSS in an external file for cases where you will be using the same CSS file throughout a multi-page website. The reason for this is that once the CSS is downloaded on first page visit, assuming you have expiry headers set properly, the browser will not need to download the CSS on subsequent page loads until the expiry TTL is passed. This even holds true across multiple user sessions on a website, such that if a user visits the sites some days/weeks later, they may not need to download the CSS at all. If you served up in-page CSS, it would need to be downloaded on every page load.
Also minifying is typically not that big of a performance boost, as most server to browser connections will perform text compression on transmitted content anyway.
Of course it is also usually much easier to maintain CSS in an external file as you have pointed out.
The best option would be to:
Minify them all and bundle them in the server side with something like bundles for Asp.Net or brewer for nodejs, that way you remove the overhead you mentioned above.
To expand on my comment:
Generally, when optimising web page loading, you want to minimise the number of HTTP requests that the browser makes as these are expensive, time-wise; even requests for small files require the browser to send its request to a server, wait for the response, and then act accordingly. From that perspective, the best thing would be to put all the code for your page into a single file. However, this would be a page maintenance nightmare, and it also fails to take into account caching of resources by browsers, as covered by #MikeBrant.
A single css file (potentially composed of several concatenated minified files) is a good compromise between separation of style (css) and content (html), and performance. The same applies to javascript. You can also consider using a content delivery network (CDN) for Javascript if you're using a common library like JQuery as the user's browser may already have the library cached from visiting another site. Google's CDN serves a number of useful libraries.
Generally, you'll get far bigger performance gains from optimising images, enabling server compression, and removing extraneous javascript than you will from minification or inlining CSS. Images are almost always the "heaviest" elements of a page, and it is often very easy to reduce image size by 20-50% and maintain decent quality.
What do you think is the best for website performance ? Load a different css per page (minified of course), so there won't be any unused css rule in this file, or load the same big (minified too) css in every page of the site ?
The question could seem obvious, but I am wondering about the browser cache... if the big css is loaded in the browser cache, it won't be reloaded in each page, no ? So, maybe it is better to have a lot of unused css rules, but one file which is not reloaded every time than multiple files that we have to load when you browse the website.
Thanks !
It is better to have one big minified css with all the rules, that way you are reducing the amount of connections the browser attempts to do to the server, as well as only one CSS gets cached for every request.
Actually this is what most minify tools do, they compress all of the files in only one CSS file for the whole application.
The other approach for performance is to use Content Delivery Networks (CDN) to load common CSS or JS from the internet.
I'm trying to optimize the loading time of my webpages, both on the first time and from cache. But I still ask the browser to re-validate all resources to make sure I will never have a weird display or an update problem due to the cache.
So currently the loading of my page always needs two requests: one for the HTML file, one for the CSS file before anything is displayed.
For both of this files, the waiting time is like 150ms while the transfer is like 5ms, which is very low.
So I'm thinking about always embeding my mais css file into the web page.
This isn't the academic way to do, but I think this would multiply the loading speed by 2, making only one request needed to load the page.
Is there a reason why I should not do that ?
you can get the best of both worlds if you set up a build script for your website.. so basically in your local file system you can keep your css files separated, making it more portable and easier to maintain etc.. but at the same time your build script embeds your css and other static files (ie js) into your html page to avoid precisely what you talked about (ie redundant connections to the server)..
Portability, the ability of changing one .css file and change multiple .html files with a reference to that css.
However, if your css is only used in that page, I think is a good reason to include it in the same file.
That's it. I've been hearing about CSS files a lot.
What are the main advantages of having a CSS file instead of writing the styles in the HTML code directly?
Assuming your site has 10 pages
You don't have to repeat yourself 10 times.
If your style changes, you don't have to do the change in 10 files
Your HTML files are smaller
Your CSS files can be cached
You can reuse the style sheet on other sites you make
I'd add to JohnP's excellent answer by saying:
you can separate out your caching
on your page (where content may
change regularly) to your CSS (where
it may not) - sites are more likely
to cache CSS for longer than they
would the content of a page,
separating it out will allow you to
do this
you can deliver your CSS
from a content delivery network,
potentially improving site
performance
you can 'minify' your
CSS as part of a build process so
that what you're developing on is
readable/verbose, and what you
deliver is small/terse, again as a
means of improving performance
once the content and presentation
are separated out, your users will
benefit from all of the above and
you will get a faster page load.
Please read this artical on Advantage of using external css.
There are a few advantages;
1) You can re-use the CSS in different pages across your site.
2) The download is separate for CSS when it is in a separate file, this is quicker.
3) The separate CSS file will be treated as static content and likely cached locally. Again quicker.
I personally find CSS easier to read and edit when it is in its own file.
Some good answers by JohnP. However, the most important reason for me would be the separation of presentation and content.
Versioning becomes far easier as you have a central point to apply changes.
The loading time of your site advances because you only deliver the stylecode ONCE and not with every html page you deliver.
Furthermore you save up loading time as the css can be cached locally and so the site loads faster after first load, if there was no changes. This can also cause problems, see solution for those problems in point 2.
you can also use different styles for different platforms or different tasks (such as braille or print)
see available types here:
Media types
There are severe cache problems regarding Internet Explorer, you can give version numbers to keep the cached css out of order, if there were changes applied, so there is NO disadvantage of using css files but a HUGE advantage in administering the site.
Example of versioning:
<link rel="stylesheet" href="[path_to_css]/style.css?v=[date]" type="text/css">
So there are only huge advantages and no disadvantages of using css, so it is best practice.
I want that my html page loads faster as it can. So I'm trying to put all CSS styles into the same .css file and all JavaScript code to the one .js file. How my colleagues told me it makes web page load faster. I want to ask some questions about it.
Just to be sure: Are my colleagues right? On which situations it's better to break CSS or JS code to the separate files?
Question is: If I have a lot of small icons on my page, like "delete, edit, add", should I load image with all icons at once or each icon separately? If I'll load all icons at once, how do I select desired one, if icon's size is 40x40px?
Thank you!
Are my colleagues right?
Single files can be downloaded with single HTTP requests (with single sets of HTTP headers, etc, etc) and can be compressed more efficiently then multiple files. So from a performance perspective, if you need all the content, it is better to place them in a single file.
On which situations it's better to break CSS or JS code to the separate files?
When you need a specific page to load very quickly (e.g. the homepage) or when there are sections of the site which use a large chunk of script that isn't used elsewhere then it can be beneficial to break the files up then.
If I have a lot of small icons on my page, like "delete, edit, add", should I load image with all icons at once or each icon separately?
From a performance standpoint, the same rules apply. However, there is no way to specify that a content image (and icons that don't decorate text are content images) is just part of a larger file. You have to use hacks involving background images. This breaks the separation of concerns around content and style and usually involves using semantically incorrect elements, and then requires further hackery to provide alternative content for users who can't see the image and that hackery rarely does as good a job as an alt attribute.
If I'll load all icons at once, how do I select desired one, if icon's size is 40x40px?
You have an element with specific dimensions and a background image with background-position set so that only the part of the image you want shows through.
Consolidating your CSS and JS code into a shared file will improve load times on all loads after the first so long as the browser uses the version of the file in its cache rather than downloading it again. There are many factors that can affect this, but under normal circumstances it should work.
Also, make sure your image files are stored in the same resolution as they will be displayed. Displaying a 40 x 40 pixel file at 20 x 20 pixels means that you have download four times the necessary image size. If the same icon file is referenced many places in an HTML document, then that icon file will only be downloaded once, so it will have little effect on page loading times.
For putting all the icons into one file and choosing which one, see this:
http://cssglobe.com/post/3028/creating-easy-and-useful-css-sprites
You can use what they call CSS sprite.
The thing is very simple to think of but can be a little tricky to use. Here is the idea.
You merge all your images into on big image, making it a single load.
Wherever these images were used on the site, you replace it by a css class which use the big image as a background and a certain positioning.
Let's say you merge 4 image together : delete.png, add.png, edit.png, share.png.
You create a css class for everyone of these like so :
.delete{ background-image:url('../img/icons.png');
background-position:0px 0px;
}
.add {background-image:url('../img/icons.png');
background-position:0px 40px;
}
.share {background-image:url('../img/icons.png');
background-position:40px 0px;
}
.edit { background-image:url('../img/icons.png');
background-position:40px 40px;
}
This way, you reduce the number of request since you you use a single image to show everywhere.
The code was written on the fly, tell if something is wrong.
Also have a look at performance guru tools : Page Speed
Breaking CSS files is not really a problem, considering browser caching.
Breaking up JS files is okay. You can have one JS that handles things needed for the page to load in the <head> tag. And one js that gives interaction to you, after </body>. By doing this you won't have various effects, but you ensure your users sees your text content.
Regarding your images, there's a practice called CSS Sprites. You can use that to make one big file for your small images and use CSS background-position to show only the part you want. It's like cropping your image file based on the css class.
If speed is most important, then what you've been told is correct.
Less CSS and JS files means less HTTP requests to the server. I would only separate files if you have a specific need as part of a project (eg they need to be maintained in ver separate ways)
For JS I always load JQuery and other libraries from the Google CDN - this has a greater performance boost that merging the library into your code as users are likely to have a cached version of Googles code.
For icons I would use CSS sprites (again this means fewer requests to the server) or if you really want to go as far as possible - look into embeding Data URI in your CSS.
Further reading
Googles Page Speed tool
Data URI in CSS
If you want a better performance report about your page, you can take a look at these tools
YSlow: http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow/
PageSpeed: http://code.google.com/intl/es-ES/speed/page-speed/docs/overview.html
Both can be added into the FireBug plugin (Mozilla Firefox).
From YSlow documentation:
Minify JavaScript and CSS
tag: javascript, css
Minification is the practice of removing unnecessary characters from code to reduce its >size thereby improving load times. When code is minified all comments are removed, as >well as unneeded white space characters (space, newline, and tab). In the case of >JavaScript, this improves response time performance because the size of the downloaded >file is reduced. Two popular tools for minifying JavaScript code are JSMin and YUI >Compressor. The YUI compressor can also minify CSS.
Obfuscation is an alternative optimization that can be applied to source code. It's more >complex than minification and thus more likely to generate bugs as a result of the >obfuscation step itself. In a survey of ten top U.S. web sites, minification achieved a >21% size reduction versus 25% for obfuscation. Although obfuscation has a higher size >reduction, minifying JavaScript is less risky.
In addition to minifying external scripts and styles, inlined and blocks >can and should also be minified. Even if you gzip your scripts and styles, minifying them >will still reduce the size by 5% or more. As the use and size of JavaScript and CSS >increases, so will the savings gained by minifying your code.
Preload Components
tag: content
Preload may look like the opposite of post-load, but it actually has a different goal. 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.
•Anticipated preload - preload in advance before launching a redesign. It often happens >after a redesign that you hear: "The new site is cool, but it's slower than before". Part >of the problem could be that the users were visiting your old site with a full cache, but >the new one is always an empty cache experience. You can mitigate this side effect by >preloading some components before you even launched the redesign. Your old site can use >the time the browser is idle and request images and scripts that will be used by the new >site
If you are using JQuery, then you can take a look at this: Preloading images with jQuery
Interesting concepts to improve download speed, perceived speed and actual speed:
7 techniques for faster JavaScript loading without compromising performance…
Make better use of caching
Download external scripts after visible content is loaded &
download multiple JavaScript in batch (asp.net/ajax)
Most principles explained are still generally applicable.