Other browsers such as FF ignore a good many page elements if they have errors or otherwise won't load. That's why they are faster browsers than IE. It is NOT a true test to test with those other browsers, you're not getting the
real picture.
I use the IE 10 test at WebPageTest because IE 10 and 11 are the standard to test to, for supporting the new browsers. If you get those tests good, all the rest of the tests are that much better.
You want to "test shop" you don't really want to fix your problems. To operate scientifically, you stick with ONE baseline test and not a scattershot of other tests, muddying the waters.
It's nonsensical to change the parameters of the test to show better results when those better results simply do not exist. It's the same as if I ran your site test with DSL or Dialup connection then tried to claim it was worse. See?
Here's your current test with the correct parameters, IE 10 and a fast cable connection out of Dulles Va.:
WebPageTest
Here's your site tested with a DSL connection, for "test shopping" reference:
DSLWebPageTest.
And you're STILL not testing worth a crap even on Firefox browser with fast cable connection. See all those F grades?
That's the ONLY reason the code you posted would exist, to try to cache static content. You copied it directly off my article about it on OzzModz. Did you not also read the article?
On your htaccess - did you finally realize you needed to put a dot before the filename? It is .htaccess not, just htaccess. It won't have any effect without the dot.
The effort you are putting in is fruitless because you are not approaching this with a scientific mindset, and you are not using the resources the WebPageTest site provides. Again, see all the F grades? Click on those and read up, the site TELLS you what you need to do to fix the issues. It's not like it's any mystery or a guessing game, they lay it out for you specifically.
02-28-2014, 03:21 AM
Hybrid Mode
