Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web.dev by Google

web.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 264 posts

Re: Web.dev by Google

#211

Post by RugnirViking »

The hacker news homepage gets a 23 on accessibility (Idk I mean there are probably some issues I hadn't thought of but the fact that its primariliy no-nonsense text makes it quite accessible by default)

It does however get 100 on performance (quite rightly) The PWA score is around 50 but most of the complaints are really silly. It almost makes me wonder if the entire category of PWA is silly.

Finally, I checked GOV.UK, the website so lauded here on hacker news as of late. It also got around 58 on PWA - what is the point? If those complaints for PWA actually meant anything, surely they could fit into one of accessibility, best practises, or performance.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#212

Post by bhartzer »

There's so much wrong with this report, it can be confusing to many people.

For example, some of what they're calling "SEO" really has nothing to do with SEO. It should be checking: - if the page is crawlable - if there is a valid title tag - if there is a valid meta description tag - if there is a valid canonical tag

But instead, it checks for a valid viewport meta tag? And if the font sizes are legible? I could see that it might be an issue if the site is hiding text on the page, but viewport and font sizes really have nothing to do with SEO.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#213

Post by josefresco »

billyhoffman wrote: post #30
partiallypro wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's pagespeed service is hot garbage. You can do things that make the page load significantly slower and get a perfect score than if you had a lower pagespeed score with a much faster page load. I also find it strange how I can get an A on every other page speed service, including GTMetrix, but get an F on Google's tes(s). Totally useless.

Isn't GTMetrix just a combined Page Speed Insights and YSlow audit?

I never pay attention to the "grades" only the data, especially the waterfall graph/data. The grades are ridiculous, and mostly meant to cause alarm. You can score 100/100 on almost every test, but get a "D" overall because you scored poorly on 1 or 2 tests. It's great tool for techs, but in the hands of a client almost every result/score appears terrible.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#214

Post by bitofhope »

arendtio wrote: post #207
bitofhope wrote: post #178

This is useless to me because I have a website, not a web application. I got a 46/100 on PWA which is astonishing because the site being tested is not a progressive web application at all. Imagine vim getting a 40/100 score in the category of web browsers. Weirdly good score. The accessibility audit is garbage as well. Apparently I should add an image to the site just so I can put an alt attribute in it. I should inc…

You might want to brush up your knowledge on what a PWA actually is [1]. For example, that list contains 'Site works cross-browser'. I hope your website works cross-browser too ;-) The only thing that sets apart a normal modern website (https, responsive, cross-browser, Each page has a URL) and a PWA is the ServiceWorker (and a few meta-tags). All the other aspects are more or less soft or minor aspects like "Page tr…

Hell yea my site works cross-browser. I've tested it with Firefox, Chromium, Midori, w3m, lynx, surf, and edbrowse and they all look fine.

I freely admit I have no idea what a PWA actually is, but that page is not helping me understand. All I find are vague descriptions about how they're reliable, fast and engaging, but nothing even approaching a definition. For all I know, a 16-ounce claw hammer is a PWA. It's certainly very reliable, fast and supremely engaging.

If PWA is all about the service worker, why are things like HTTPS, splash pages, 200 offline, or address bar matching brand colors(?!) included in the category? Those things don't make my site any faster or more responsive, and I doubt a service worker would either. Why on earth would I want my site to return 200 offline anyway? I don't wanna lie to a user.

Ok, lemme take a deep breath. I'm sure a PWA does not equal a single-page broken piece of JS monstrosity. I just don't think it's a good idea to give me bright red warning triangles about not having a service worker unless Google believe every site should have a service worker. In that case I disagree with them because I don't think I need a 200 OK if my network interface has caught fire in the middle of browsing.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#215

Post by hajile »

bhartzer wrote: post #212

There's so much wrong with this report, it can be confusing to many people. For example, some of what they're calling "SEO" really has nothing to do with SEO. It should be checking: - if the page is crawlable - if there is a valid title tag - if there is a valid meta description tag - if there is a valid canonical tag But instead, it checks for a valid viewport meta tag? And if the font sizes are legible? I could see…

I could be wrong, but I thought these were things Google used when ranking sites (especially for mobile).

Re: Web.dev by Google

#216

Post by softawre »

robdodson wrote: post #57
NelsonMinar wrote: post #53

Talk about breaking the back button! Do a measurement on a website. Then click one of the Guide links like "Links do not have a discernible name". Page navigates away from the report to some documentation. Click back, report is gone. I get it, it's a single page webapp. But if you do that you need to make all the simple navigations open new tabs. There is a "open link in new button" icon next to each link, but that's…

Ah yeah that's something we want to fix. If you're signed in it keeps the report around but if you're signed-out it's stateless. It's definitely on our to-do list to fix.

It's made worse by the fact that you can't easily read the recommendation without clicking on it.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#217

Post by kodablah »

Touche wrote: post #205
svnpenn wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Would you take webdev advice from a company where their own apps are memory hog/leaking garbage (Gmail)? At some point you need to call a square a square.

If you disagree with the advice on web.dev then that's fine. Call that out. Saying that the advice is wrong because another team in another building, maybe in another city or another country, built an app you don't like, is just wrong. This sort of ad hominem is beneath HN.

Yet it seems excusing corporate hypocrisy and inconsistency based on size and employee location to be par for the course.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#218

Post by softawre »

magicalist wrote: post #152
fhdhehfhzhe wrote: post #97

Looks like this - https://webhint.io Why not collaborate with the people who’ve made this first, google?

As others have noted, looks like this is just running Lighthouse? That's been around for a long time.

From webhint's about/faq:

> webhint’s development started inside the Microsoft Edge team

Re: Web.dev by Google

#219

Post by jopsen »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #186
jopsen wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_... I'm no lawyer, but I read that as it is not used for tracking users. (full disclosure: I work at Google, on something unrelated)

I see no explanation given why an asset that never changes would need to be requested once a day, and they clearly state they do record it. > We only [sic] see 1 CSS request per font family, per day, per browser. Google Fonts logs records of the CSS and the font file requests, and access to this data is kept secure. I read that as what's written there. It's for tracking. Tracking popularity is still tracking.

> Tracking popularity is still tracking.

Tracking usually refers to tracking users, which as I read the FAQ isn't what it's for.

Re: Web.dev by Google

#220

Post by Sargos »

These comments really highlight how Hacker News is slowly devolving into Slashdot with a stuck in the past mentality and no constructive criticism just groupthink attacks on "stuff we don't like or understand".
Post reply on HN