SuzyUK - 1:35 am on Mar 4, 2011 (gmt 0)
yea, it's a merry-go-round for sure, but being as this has been a pet peeve of mine for a while I am going to take the time to optimise the site in my profile as best I know how using cdn's, sprites, Data URI's, htaccess tricks, compression, minification, (and eventually caching!) - tricks like you find on that site you mention, or here on WebmasterWorld actually (thanks to my twitter friend).. anything really
then well all that is done (or a balance of it), and because of the fact I don't have to support IE6 any more I am going to try the CSS optimisation, and make all my selector (even more) EFFICIENT haha ;)
I'm not against writing code that uses the most efficient selectors. I just doubt claims that making selectors more specific will make code more efficient when the real inefficiency problem is html and the bloated css used to style it,
I have always doubted, but with everything web like eventually a corner will turn, so I'm thinking now that the above test may prove one way or the other, and if it doesn't then I'll have some more data or experience. BUT of course I've already tweaked/re-coded half the template to not be quite so bloated HTML, the other half is not completely outwith my php capability I'm just trying to retain a balance of "if aint broke" .. this is not the fault of the software we have available today, either way, it's the fact that they work for the majority, and that most big sites still need to (and will continue to need to) support IE6.
You are right though, unless you've already optimised everything else, HTML, Images, reduced http requests, parallelized downloads etc.. then "fine tuning" the CSS likely won't register.. but if you are really tight or are chasing that green tick, like some seem focused on, then I figured it might be an interesting exercise, if nothing else