Absolutely love how one company dictates how you should build your websites. Love it!
You can build your website any way you like.
Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
21–30 of 77 posts
Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Example: NYTimes.com on Mobile Safari with AdGuard. 18 seconds. Dear lord, I can't imagine that's the fault of NYTimes. Something is off with your setup. NYTimes.com is super quick and responsive on my devices.
What "setup"? Parent said Mobile Safari. The setup come off of the factory as a given.
Maybe AdGuard? Maybe they have 2G internet?
Something isn't right, and I have a hard time believing it's NYTimes given my experiences with their website.
Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
#23Starts strong: > Chrome usage data shows that 90% of a user's time on a page is spent after it loads Clearly impressive, breakthrough, research going on at Google.
It's much less than I expected.
Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
#24Starts strong: > Chrome usage data shows that 90% of a user's time on a page is spent after it loads Clearly impressive, breakthrough, research going on at Google.
Less obvious than you think. How long do you spend on the HN front page? When you open say Gitlab how often do you stay there and not immediately click to something else?
> How long do you spend on the HN front page?
...more time than it takes to load. much, much more time.
Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
#25This may be controversial but I think this has the potential to be a brilliant metric because it measures some part of web UX that’s often neglected. It’s time consuming to make every single interaction display some sort of loading message but it really helps make the site feel responsive.
As long as they avoid the pattern of adding a global loading spinner that covers the whole screen. That’s just the worst possible loading screen. I suppose it would still pass this metric.
Also I’m not sure if I totally understand the metric - I think it’s simply when the next frame is rendered post interaction, which should easily be under 200ms unless you’re
1. doing some insane amount of client side computation
2. talking over the network far away from your service or your API call is slow / massive
and both of these are mitigated by having any loading indication so I don’t understand how this metric will be difficult to fix.
Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
#26Starts strong: > Chrome usage data shows that 90% of a user's time on a page is spent after it loads Clearly impressive, breakthrough, research going on at Google.
Less obvious than you think. How long do you spend on the HN front page? When you open say Gitlab how often do you stay there and not immediately click to something else?
If it takes 300ms to load and takes me a few seconds to find a link, I’ve spent 90% of my time on the page after it loads.
Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
#27[dead]
Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
#28This may be controversial but I think this has the potential to be a brilliant metric because it measures some part of web UX that’s often neglected. It’s time consuming to make every single interaction display some sort of loading message but it really helps make the site feel responsive. As long as they avoid the pattern of adding a global loading spinner that covers the whole screen. That’s just the worst possible…
> This may be controversial but I think this has the potential to be a brilliant metric because it measures some part of web UX that’s often neglected.
It also seems to be a metric that is very easily gamed.
If all that matters is instant feedback, then just draw that loader as soon as user clicks add to cart, do not wait for the request to start. It does not matter that it will take X or Y seconds.
Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
#29This may be controversial but I think this has the potential to be a brilliant metric because it measures some part of web UX that’s often neglected. It’s time consuming to make every single interaction display some sort of loading message but it really helps make the site feel responsive. As long as they avoid the pattern of adding a global loading spinner that covers the whole screen. That’s just the worst possible…
> This may be controversial but I think this has the potential to be a brilliant metric because it measures some part of web UX that’s often neglected. It also seems to be a metric that is very easily gamed. If all that matters is instant feedback, then just draw that loader as soon as user clicks add to cart, do not wait for the request to start. It does not matter that it will take X or Y seconds.
You will be pleased to know that isn’t actually the case and it’s instead an example of a single metric taken from a larger suite of metrics known collectively as core web vitals which is what is actually used https://web.dev/vitals/
Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)
#30This may be controversial but I think this has the potential to be a brilliant metric because it measures some part of web UX that’s often neglected. It’s time consuming to make every single interaction display some sort of loading message but it really helps make the site feel responsive. As long as they avoid the pattern of adding a global loading spinner that covers the whole screen. That’s just the worst possible…
> This may be controversial but I think this has the potential to be a brilliant metric because it measures some part of web UX that’s often neglected. It also seems to be a metric that is very easily gamed. If all that matters is instant feedback, then just draw that loader as soon as user clicks add to cart, do not wait for the request to start. It does not matter that it will take X or Y seconds.
You’d need some pretty inefficient code for there to be a delay between the user clicking a button and even starting a request…
But even in that case, instant feedback is probably better for the user. It lets them know the website isn’t broken and they don’t need to click again, and it also makes the experience feel snappier.