Aleksey Kulikov
@alekseykulikov.bsky.social
#webperf, founder of https://treo.sh/, synth player, live in Maribor, Slovenia
Still, it's realistic to build CWV passing SPAs.
December 6, 2024 at 3:53 PM
Still, it's realistic to build CWV passing SPAs.
Reposted by Aleksey Kulikov
Great read, thanks!
I fully approve of the idea of having an all-stakeholder-friendly metric.
Here's an explicit suggestion for a "Vital Score":
bsky.app/profile/alek...
I fully approve of the idea of having an all-stakeholder-friendly metric.
Here's an explicit suggestion for a "Vital Score":
bsky.app/profile/alek...
Here's my idea for Vital Score:
• shows % of traffic passing CWVs
• no weights, shows the progress, easy to compare, evolves CWV assessment
• formula: (LCP+CLS+INP+ min(LCP, CLS, INP)) / 4
What do you think? #webperf
Thx @timvereecke.bsky.social for min() trick and @csswizardry.com for CrRRUX
• shows % of traffic passing CWVs
• no weights, shows the progress, easy to compare, evolves CWV assessment
• formula: (LCP+CLS+INP+ min(LCP, CLS, INP)) / 4
What do you think? #webperf
Thx @timvereecke.bsky.social for min() trick and @csswizardry.com for CrRRUX
December 6, 2024 at 3:14 PM
Great read, thanks!
I fully approve of the idea of having an all-stakeholder-friendly metric.
Here's an explicit suggestion for a "Vital Score":
bsky.app/profile/alek...
I fully approve of the idea of having an all-stakeholder-friendly metric.
Here's an explicit suggestion for a "Vital Score":
bsky.app/profile/alek...
Maybe adjust weight to the min value? Like Johannes suggested: bsky.app/profile/powd...
Cool. I like "avoid hiding poor values" - others may like "see the progress". :-)
I think you're taking a weighted average between two methods: an average, and a min, such that the average has a weight of 3/4 and the min has a weight of 1/4. So depending on preference, it could be tweaked, right?
I think you're taking a weighted average between two methods: an average, and a min, such that the average has a weight of 3/4 and the min has a weight of 1/4. So depending on preference, it could be tweaked, right?
December 5, 2024 at 9:47 AM
Maybe adjust weight to the min value? Like Johannes suggested: bsky.app/profile/powd...
Yes, I went through similar logic.
75 is the magic number for passing CWV. After you just make a faster website, which is rewarded with a bigger score.
75 is the magic number for passing CWV. After you just make a faster website, which is rewarded with a bigger score.
December 5, 2024 at 9:44 AM
Yes, I went through similar logic.
75 is the magic number for passing CWV. After you just make a faster website, which is rewarded with a bigger score.
75 is the magic number for passing CWV. After you just make a faster website, which is rewarded with a bigger score.
I remember ranking is not binary. It goes from poor=0 to good=1 (need improvement is not 0). In this case, the score correlates with ranking, especially if you account for popularity for pages/groups/origin and that it's subject to change.
Also, it quantifies UX improvements, which is the main goal.
Also, it quantifies UX improvements, which is the main goal.
December 5, 2024 at 9:41 AM
I remember ranking is not binary. It goes from poor=0 to good=1 (need improvement is not 0). In this case, the score correlates with ranking, especially if you account for popularity for pages/groups/origin and that it's subject to change.
Also, it quantifies UX improvements, which is the main goal.
Also, it quantifies UX improvements, which is the main goal.
Yes, it's indeed a weighted average between min & avg approaches.
Do you think 3/5 and 2/5 or 1/2 and 1/2 would make more sense?
Do you think 3/5 and 2/5 or 1/2 and 1/2 would make more sense?
December 5, 2024 at 9:31 AM
Yes, it's indeed a weighted average between min & avg approaches.
Do you think 3/5 and 2/5 or 1/2 and 1/2 would make more sense?
Do you think 3/5 and 2/5 or 1/2 and 1/2 would make more sense?
null values should be ignored, for null INP:(LCP+CLS+min(LCP,CLS))/3
There're reasons for the score:
• compare sites/pages
• LCP/CLS/INP names and meanings are complex to understand for non-tech people
• It's an evolution of CWV assessment (not a new metric)
What do you think are the downsides?
There're reasons for the score:
• compare sites/pages
• LCP/CLS/INP names and meanings are complex to understand for non-tech people
• It's an evolution of CWV assessment (not a new metric)
What do you think are the downsides?
December 4, 2024 at 8:47 AM
null values should be ignored, for null INP:(LCP+CLS+min(LCP,CLS))/3
There're reasons for the score:
• compare sites/pages
• LCP/CLS/INP names and meanings are complex to understand for non-tech people
• It's an evolution of CWV assessment (not a new metric)
What do you think are the downsides?
There're reasons for the score:
• compare sites/pages
• LCP/CLS/INP names and meanings are complex to understand for non-tech people
• It's an evolution of CWV assessment (not a new metric)
What do you think are the downsides?
Interesting! Where do you get the data?
November 14, 2024 at 2:18 PM
Interesting! Where do you get the data?