* Posts by Harry Tansey

2 posts • joined 21 Jun 2011

Chrome beta promises super-fast URL loads

Harry Tansey

What about the server owners?

Hey Google, this is *really stupid*. There's not enough detail to know for sure what the effects of this will be, but it sounds like the background pre-fetching could slightly or massively increase the number of requests to the web server, based on guesswork. Any URLs loaded that are not used will screw server-based analytics. It will also needlessly increase bandwidth for the user and the site owner, both of which can cost a lot of money as this multiplies up. A lot of web pages are now generated dynamically, e.g. by a CMS, and the servers may well start to bog down - at best reducing the response time for real requests and at worst causing serious performance issues. AVG tried this a while back - pre-loading results pages from Google to check for virii - and it caused similar issues and was removed, thankfully. Fasterfox also did id and similarly caused issues. Google - think! If you think this speeds up the Internet you're wrong - it slows down servers and costs everyone (but you) money. It's irresponsible.

Got a website? Pay attention, Cookie Law will come

Harry Tansey

How did this ever happen?

Overly restrictive!

The restrictions on using session cookies and analytics cookies, such as Google Analytics cookies, is ridiculous. Session cookies merely get over the fact that http is stateless and allow features such as a vote to work without the user then being able to vote again - can you imagine "when you vote for your favourite choice would you please accept this cookie, because if you don't you can vote as many times as you wish"... or the amount of log on forms that have to be polluted with "blah blah, cookie, blah blah...." ... that'll do a great service to web design!

Not to mention ICO themselves drop a session cookie without asking... let's face it, storing a number on a user's browser really isn't that intrusive, to do without just means a lot more work behind the scenes to achieve the same goal.

Why shouldn't a website owner be able to track a user's visit around the site to see how the site is used, or to help with problems? It's not like you can opt out of CCTV in a physical store.

Yes, third party cross-site advertising is intrusive, and this is where the effort of enforcement should be placed, not on routine functionality used unobtrusively by millions of websites.

It's bad enough if you are capable of doing something about it. What about those web site owners who use code developed by third parties or open source? Have the EU investigated the effects on such people who'll have to pay (in time and/or money) to "fix" their web sites?

This is a total waste of time and money. Why should UK/EU site owners be disadvantaged by all this extra effort and polution of the user experience?

The web industry should be up in arms about this. Where are the protest sites?


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019