Insights

Google Lighthouse Performance

The Google Lighthouse performance score is a metric that measures the speed and performance of a website. It’s an overall score that ranges from 0 to 100 and is generated based on a number of different performance metrics, such as the time it takes for a website to load, the time it takes for a website to become interactive, the size of the resources used by the website, and other factors that impact the user experience.

A high performance score in Google Lighthouse indicates that a website is fast and responsive, which can lead to a better user experience and improved search engine rankings. On the other hand, a low performance score can indicate that a website is slow and unresponsive, and can negatively impact the user experience.

Mobile Performance
34%
Desktop Performance
53%

Core Web Vitals

Core Web Vitals are a set of specific factors that Google considers important in a webpage’s overall user experience. Core Web Vitals are made up of three specific page speed and user interaction measurements: Largest Contentful PaintFirst Input Delay, and Cumulative Layout Shift.

VitalMobileDesktopTarget
Largest Contentful Paint9.2 s3.3 s< 2.5 s
First Input Delay260 ms80 ms< 100ms
Cumulative Layout Shift0.3790.278 0.1

Opportunities

Remove autoplaying or preloaded media files

By removing 2 autoplaying or preloaded videos, roughly 261.8 KB could be removed from the page load.

This would reduce the page transfer size by 3% and reduce the pages emissions from 2.52 grams of CO2 to 2.45 grams of CO2.

Autoplaying videos can have a negative impact on the user experience for several reasons:

  1. Increased data usage: Autoplaying videos can consume a lot of data, especially if they are set to play in high definition. This can be a problem for users with limited data plans or slow connections, who may experience slow or interrupted playback.
  2. Annoyance factor: Autoplaying videos can be annoying for users, especially if they are accompanied by sound. This can lead to a negative perception of the website and decreased engagement.
  3. Reduced accessibility: Autoplaying videos can be a problem for users with accessibility needs, such as users who are blind or have hearing difficulties.
  4. Increased page load time: Autoplaying videos can increase the overall page load time, leading to a slower user experience.
  5. Decreased battery life: Autoplaying videos can consume a lot of battery power, especially on mobile devices, leading to reduced battery life.

In order to minimise the impact of autoplaying videos on the user experience, it is recommended to use them sparingly and only when necessary. It is also important to provide users with the option to turn off autoplaying videos and to allow them to control the playback of videos on the page. Additionally, videos should be optimised for performance and should be accompanied by captions or transcripts to improve accessibility.

c2d33dcf.mp4 260 KB 3%
eb17bd75.mp4 2 KB 0%

Optimise images

By optimising the following images, roughly 7 MB could be removed from the transfer size, about 78%. This would reduce the CO2 generated per page load from 2.52g grams to 0.56 grams.

Images should be optimised for the web for several reasons:

  1. Reduced file size: Optimizing images can result in a smaller file size, which can help to reduce the amount of data that needs to be downloaded. This can lead to faster page load times and improved performance.
  2. Improved user experience: Optimising images can help to improve the overall user experience, as pages with optimised images load faster and are more responsive.
  3. Lower emissions: Optimising images can help to reduce the emissions associated with data transfer, as less data needs to be transmitted over the network.
  4. Better accessibility: Optimising images can make them more accessible to users with slower connections or limited data plans.
StLeonardsPlazaImage1.png 4 MB 46% 4 MB
DA_FINAL_A_GOLF%20COURSE%202.png 3 MB 33% 3 MB

Replace icon font files

Font icons can have a negative impact on performance and emissions because they can increase the size of the page and the amount of data that needs to be downloaded. Some specific reasons why font icons can be bad for performance and emissions include:

  1. Increased file size: Font icons are typically included as part of a web font, which can be a large file that needs to be downloaded. This can increase the overall size of the page, leading to slower load times and higher emissions.
  2. Inefficient rendering: Web fonts are sometimes loaded and rendered inefficiently, which can result in slow performance and higher emissions.
  3. Unused icons: Font icons often include a large number of icons that may not be used on a particular page, increasing the file size and leading to inefficient use of resources.

While icon fonts are still widely used on the web, and they can be a useful tool for adding icons to a website. it is a dated practice when there are better options such as SVG icons, which can be more efficient and have a lower impact on performance and emissions.

FontSize
fontawesome-webfont.woff83 KB

Convert font files to woff2

WOFF2 is considered to be the best font format for web use because it provides a good balance of file size and compatibility. Some specific reasons why WOFF2 is a good font format include:

  1. Small file size: WOFF2 is a compressed font format, which means that it has a smaller file size compared to other font formats like TTF or OTF. This is important for web use because smaller file sizes can help to reduce the amount of data that needs to be downloaded, leading to faster page load times.
  2. High-quality font rendering: WOFF2 provides high-quality font rendering, making it a good choice for use on the web.

It’s worth noting that WOFF2 is not the only font format that can be used on the web, and there may be cases where other formats like WOFF or TTF are more suitable, depending on the specific requirements of the website. However, for most cases, WOFF2 is considered to be the best font format for web use due to its combination of small file size, good browser support, and high-quality font rendering.

Fontformat
fontawesome-webfont.woffwoff

Replace jQuery and jQuery libraries with more modern code

jQuery is a popular and widely-used JavaScript library that simplifies web development by providing a set of tools and functions to interact with HTML documents, handle events, create animations, and make asynchronous HTTP requests.

In the past, jQuery was a very popular choice for web development because it simplified many common tasks and provided a consistent and cross-browser-compatible API. However, with the advancement of modern web technologies and improvements in browser capabilities, the need for jQuery has decreased.

Many modern web frameworks and libraries, such as React and Angular, provide their own set of tools for handling common tasks and interacting with the DOM, making jQuery less necessary in many cases. The Javascript engine in modern browsers have also become more consistent in the feature implementations often eliminating the need for a library like jQuery.

jQuery represents an opportunity because:

  1. Performance: While jQuery is a powerful and useful library, it can slow down website performance due to its large size and complex code. Modern browsers have also improved their native support for many of the features that jQuery provides, reducing the need for it.
  2. Maintainability: jQuery code can be difficult to maintain and update, particularly as web technologies evolve and change. This can make it harder for developers to keep up with best practices and standards for web development.
  3. Accessibility: Some jQuery plugins and features can create accessibility issues, particularly for users who rely on assistive technologies. This can make it harder for people with disabilities to use and access websites.

First Contentful Paint

First Contentful Paint (FCP) is a performance metric that measures the time it takes for the first piece of content to be rendered on the screen when a user navigates to a web page. This content can be any visual element on the page, such as text, images, or a background color.

FCP is important because it directly affects the perceived speed of a website, and can impact user engagement and conversion rates. A faster FCP can lead to a better user experience and improved performance.

Here are a few ways you can optimise your FCP:

  1. Optimise images: Large, unoptimised images can slow down a page’s FCP. You can optimise images by compressing them, reducing their dimensions, and choosing the right format for each image.
  2. Minimise HTTP requests: Each resource requested by a web page, such as images, scripts, and stylesheets, requires a separate HTTP request. Minimising the number of HTTP requests can help to reduce the time it takes for a page to render.
  3. Prioritize critical content: Prioritizing critical content, such as above-the-fold content, can help to ensure that users see something on the screen quickly, even if the rest of the page is still loading.
  4. Reduce server response time: A slow server response time can significantly impact FCP. Optimizing server-side code and server settings can help to reduce response times and improve FCP.
  5. Use a performance monitoring tool: There are many tools available that can help you monitor your website’s performance, including FCP. These tools can help you identify performance issues and track your progress as you implement optimizations.
MobileDesktop
Score11%57%
Timing4.9 s1.5 s

Largest Contentful Paint

MobileDesktop
Score1%27%
Timing9.2 s3.3 s

Total Blocking Time

MobileDesktop
Score86%100%
Timing230 ms20 ms

Cumulative Layout Shift

MobileDesktop
Score27%44%
Timing0.3790.278

Speed Index

MobileDesktop
Score0%0%
Timing32.5 s8.9 s

Time to Interactive

MobileDesktop
Score0%11%
Timing36.7 s7.9 s

Max Potential First Input Delay

MobileDesktop
Score46%99%
Timing260 ms80 ms

First Meaningful Paint

MobileDesktop
Score31%57%
Timing4.9 s1.5 s

Eliminate render-blocking resources

MobileDesktop
Score13%43%
InsightPotential savings of 3,870 msPotential savings of 1,330 ms

Properly size images

MobileDesktop
Score0%0%
InsightPotential savings of 7,785 KiBPotential savings of 7,837 KiB

Reduce unused CSS

MobileDesktop
Score48%87%
InsightPotential savings of 90 KiBPotential savings of 90 KiB

Reduce unused JavaScript

MobileDesktop
Score38%79%
InsightPotential savings of 323 KiBPotential savings of 322 KiB

Efficiently encode images

MobileDesktop
Score58%97%
InsightPotential savings of 118 KiBPotential savings of 118 KiB

Serve images in next-gen formats

MobileDesktop
Score0%0%
InsightPotential savings of 7,399 KiBPotential savings of 7,399 KiB

Reduce initial server response time

MobileDesktop
GradeFailFail
InsightRoot document took 1,470 msRoot document took 1,960 ms

Avoid multiple page redirects

MobileDesktop
Score46%73%
InsightPotential savings of 1,110 msPotential savings of 340 ms

Avoid enormous network payloads

MobileDesktop
Score0%0%
InsightTotal size was 9,822 KiBTotal size was 9,774 KiB

Serve static assets with an efficient cache policy

MobileDesktop
Score76%77%
Insight8 resources found8 resources found

Avoid an excessive DOM size

MobileDesktop
Score62%62%
Insight1,227 elements1,227 elements

JavaScript execution time

MobileDesktop
Score89%100%
Timing1.3 s0.3 s

Minimizes main-thread work

MobileDesktop
Score65%99%
Timing3.2 s1.1 s

Ensure text remains visible during webfont load

MobileDesktop
GradeFailFail

Minimize third-party usage

MobileDesktop
GradeFailPass
InsightThird-party code blocked the main thread for 450 msThird-party code blocked the main thread for 50 ms

Some third-party resources can be lazy loaded with a facade

MobileDesktop
GradeFailFail
Insight1 facade alternative available1 facade alternative available

Does not use passive listeners to improve scrolling performance

MobileDesktop
GradeFailFail

Image elements do not have explicit width and height

MobileDesktop
GradeFailFail

Does not have a <meta name="viewport"> tag with width or initial-scale

MobileDesktop
GradeFailFail