Getting up to speed on Core Web Vitals seems to be at the top of everyone's to-do list these days. Just in time for the holidays, we are happy to bring you our new Vitals dashboard to help you get a huge jumpstart.
We love to visualize performance data (in case you haven't heard). We love it even more when we can be true to one of our biggest motivations at SpeedCurve: leveraging both RUM and Synthetic data to help you take action on what matters most.
We’ve been pretty vocal about Core Web Vitals since Google announced this initiative last spring. We love the idea of having a lean, shared set of metrics that we can all rally around – not to mention having a broader conversation about web performance that includes teams throughout an organization.
For many site owners, the increased focus on Core Web Vitals is driven by the fact that Google will be including them as a factor in search ranking in May 2021. Other folks are more interested in distilling the extremely large barrel of performance metrics into an easily digested trinity of guidelines to follow in order to provide a delightful user experience.
We’ve had some time to evaluate and explore these metrics, and we're committed to transparently discussing their pros and cons.
The purpose of this post is to explore First Input Delay (FID). This metric is unique among the three Web Vitals in that it is can only be measured using real user monitoring (RUM), while the other two (Largest Contentful Paint and Cumulative Layout Shift) can be measured using both RUM and synthetic monitoring.
In this post we'll cover:
Let's dig in!
Back in May, we shared that SpeedCurve supports Google's Core Web Vitals in both our synthetic monitoring and LUX real user monitoring tools. Two of the Web Vitals – Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) and First Input Delay (FID) – were actually available in SpeedCurve for quite a while prior to the announcement. The newcomer to the scene was Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS), and, not surprisingly, it's the metric that's gotten the most questions.
A few of the questions I've been asked (or asked myself) about Cumulative Layout Shift:
Six months in, I've had a chance to gather and look at a lot of data, talk with customers, and learn from our friends in the performance community. Here's what I've learned so far.
One of the big challenges with Google's new Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS) metric is understanding which elements actually moved on the page, when they moved, and by how much. To help with debugging your CLS scores, we've added a new visualization to SpeedCurve that shows each layout shift and how each individual shift adds up to the final cumulative metric.
For each layout shift, we show you the filmstrip frame right before and right after the shift. We then draw a red box around the elements that moved, highlighting exactly which elements caused the shift. The Layout Shift Score for each shift also helps you understand the impact of that shift and how it adds to the cumulative score.
Is your site fast? Adding to a string of recent announcements including Lighthouse v6 and Core Web Vitals, Google has introduced Fast page labelling in Chrome 85 for Android. If you are curious about what this means for your site and how you can get in front of it, read on!
Google recently announced an initiative called 'Web Vitals', which focuses on three performance metrics they consider essential for improving the user experience:
With the exception of FID, all of these metrics are available in both LUX (our RUM tool) and Synthetic. FID requires a real user for calculation and therefore is only available in LUX. In place of FID for Synthetic, we recommend tracking JS Long Tasks or Total Blocking Time as an alternative CPU metric.
Here at SpeedCurve, the past few months have found us obsessing over how to define and measure user happiness. We've also been scrutinizing JS performance, particularly as it applies to third parties. And as always, we're constantly working to find ways to improve your experience with using our tools. See below for exciting updates on all these fronts.
As always, we love hearing from you, so please send your feedback and suggestions our way!
<link rel="preload" href="main.js" as="script">
We're excited to announce the availability of the First Input Delay metric as part of LUX, SpeedCurve's RUM product.
We're excited to announce that we've launched Last Painted Hero as an official metric. Last Painted Hero is a synthetic metric that shows you when the last piece of critical content is painted. Keep reading to learn how Last Painted Hero works, why (and how) we created it, and how it can help you understand how your users perceive the speed of your pages.
When choosing the right performance metric, my soapbox for the last few years has been "not every pixel has the same value". In other words, rather than chase dozens of different performance metrics, focus on the metrics that measure what's critical in your page.
Here at SpeedCurve, we think it's good to focus on rendering metrics, because they're a closer approximation to what the user experiences. There are some good rendering metrics out there, like start render and Speed Index, but the downside to these metrics is that they give every pixel the same value. For example, if the background renders and some ads render, that could improve your start render time and Speed Index score, but it might not have a big impact on the user's experience. Instead, it's better to measure the parts of the page that matter the most to users. We call those parts of the page the "hero elements".
I’m at Shop.org this week, having really interesting conversations with online retailers. What I love about talking with this crowd is that – like me – they're super focused on user-perceived performance. Not surprisingly, we have a lot to talk about.
Making customers happy is the not-so-secret secret to retail success. Delivering a fast, consistent online experience has been proven to measurably increase every metric retailers care about – from conversions and revenue to retention and brand perception. (In fact, there's so much research in this area, I dedicated an entire chapter in my book to it. You can also find a number of great studies on WPO Stats.)
Delivering great, fast online experiences starts with asking two questions:
The good news is that most of the issues that are making pages slow for your shoppers are right on your pages, which means you have control over them. Here's an overview of the most common performance issues on retail sites, and how you can track them down and fix them.
The key to a good user experience is quickly delivering the content your visitors care about the most. This is easy to say, but tricky to do. Every site has unique content and user engagement goals, which is why measuring how fast critical content renders has historically been a challenging task.
That's why we're very excited to introduce Hero Rendering Times, a set of new metrics for measuring the user experience. Hero Times measure when a page's most important content finishes rendering in the browser. These metrics are available right now to SpeedCurve users.
More on how Hero Rendering Times work further down in this post. But first, I want to give a bit of back story that explains how we got to here.
A couple of month ago, someone asked if I'd written a page bloat update recently. The answer was no. I've written a lot of posts about page bloat, starting way back in 2012, when the average page hit 1MB. To my mind, the topic had been well covered. We know that the general trend is that pages are getting bigger at a fairly consistent rate of growth. It didn't feel like there was much new territory to cover.
Also: it felt like Ilya Grigorik dropped the mic on the page bloat conversation with this awesome post, where he illustrated why the "average page" is a myth. Among the many things Ilya observed after analyzing HTTP Archive data for desktop sites, when you have outliers that weigh in at 30MB+ and more than 90% of your pages are under 5MB, an "average page size" of 2227KB (back in 2016) doesn't mean much.
The mic dropped. We all stared at it on the floor for a while, then wandered away. And now I want to propose we wander back. Why? Because the average page is now 3MB in size, and this seems like a good time to pause, check our assumptions, and ask ourselves:
Is there any reason to care about page size as a performance metric? And if we don't consider page size a meaningful metric, then what should we care about?
SpeedCurve’s sweet spot is the intersection of design and performance - where the user experience lives. Other monitoring services focus on network behavior and the mechanics of the browser. Yet users rarely complain that “the DNS lookups are too slow” or “the load event fired late”. Instead, users get frustrated when they have to wait for the content they care about to appear on the screen.
The key to a good user experience is quickly delivering the critical content.
At SpeedCurve, we focus on metrics that capture the user experience. A big part of the user experience is when content actually appears in front of the user. Since stylesheets and synchronous scripts are the culprits when it comes to blocking rendering, we've rolled out some new metrics that focus on these critical blocking resources.
The most helpful innovation we made is to highlight the critical blocking stylesheets and synchronous scripts in our waterfall charts. In the following example waterfall chart for ESPN, notice how the critical stylesheets (green) and synchronous scripts (orange) have a red hash pattern. Not surprisingly, the Start Render metric is delayed until after the last of these critical blocking resources is done loading. The "scrubber" at the bottom of the waterfall (showing the screenshot at that point in time) confirms that rendering has been blocked up to this point. Explore an example of a interactive waterfall chart.
At SpeedCurve, we want to help designers and developers have better insight into the user experience they're delivering. For websites, this means understanding when the critical parts of the page render and what might be blocking rendering.
Originally published on the O'Reilly Radar Blog
I’ve attended four O’Reilly Velocity conferences over the last year, and I was struck by a notable shift in the conversations at Velocity in Santa Clara, Calif. Many speakers and attendees have started to change their language and describe the experience of their websites and apps from the user’s perspective.
The balance has shifted from just talking about how fast or reliable a particular system is to the overall experience a user has when they interact with and experience a product. Many people are now looking at themselves from the outside in and developing more empathy for their users. The words “user” and “user experience” were mentioned again and again by speakers.
Here are recent talks from Velocity and other events that highlight this shift to UX concerns.