Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

#1

Post by 42droids » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 3:35 PM UTC

Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

#2

Post by danielvaughn » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:03 PM UTC

At first glance, 200ms INP is a pretty high latency for a "good" rating. As a comparison, I believe 200ms is an average https roundtrip. I'd expect most interactions to be much lower than that.

Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

#3

Post by klysm » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

danielvaughn wrote: post #2

At first glance, 200ms INP is a pretty high latency for a "good" rating. As a comparison, I believe 200ms is an average https roundtrip. I'd expect most interactions to be much lower than that.

I guess it depends on how your interactions are implemented. If it’s an SPA then 200ms is absurdly slow. But if it’s a more traditional form submit or something then it would take a lot longer for your next set of pixels to comes through.

Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

#4

Post by jgrahamc » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

#5

Post by photonerd » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:08 PM UTC

danielvaughn wrote: post #2

At first glance, 200ms INP is a pretty high latency for a "good" rating. As a comparison, I believe 200ms is an average https roundtrip. I'd expect most interactions to be much lower than that.

That was my first impression too but then I thought about what it’s actually measuring: page responsiveness, not animation jank.

I’m not going to expect a 16ms response or anything for every animation but much slower & you see jank.

For page interactivity though? 0.2s is pretty damn fast. Human response time is 0.15-0.25s

So it’s pretty reasonable

Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

#6

Post by doctorpangloss » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:15 PM UTC

The real metric: INP with ad blocking enabled.

Example: NYTimes.com on Mobile Safari with AdGuard. 18 seconds.

Google is being really disingenuous with its so called metrics. A stroke of the pen could make INP 200ms across the top 500 sites.

Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

#7

Post by barbazoo » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:22 PM UTC

I'm lacking lots of context obviously but: What good is a sophisticated metric when the pages they index are mostly blogspam SO clones etc? I'm not interested in the "most responsive" SO clone. Seems out of touch with what Google search is struggling with these days.

Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

#8

Post by benatkin » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:23 PM UTC

To me it sounds like this will help pattern of showing a skeleton screen when loading data. https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2020/04/skeleton-screens-re...

Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

#9

Post by we_never_see_it » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:37 PM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #6

The real metric: INP with ad blocking enabled. Example: NYTimes.com on Mobile Safari with AdGuard. 18 seconds. Google is being really disingenuous with its so called metrics. A stroke of the pen could make INP 200ms across the top 500 sites.

That's all Google cares about. How to invade our privacy and force us to see more ads?

Re: Interaction to Next Paint (INP)

#10

Post by axlee » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 4:40 PM UTC

We started seeing reports about it in GSC early July, when over a single day all our scores turned to crap with no explanation.

We are in the yellow, but the biggest culprits for blocking time are...Google Tag Manager, GAds (and Ganalytics where we still have it). So yeah, thanks Google, can't wait to lose on SEO due to your own products. And also, thanks for releasing this without the proper analysis tooling. (https://web.dev/debug-performance-in-the-field/#inp : this is not tooling, this is undue burden on developers. Making people bundle an extra ["light" library](https://www.npmjs.com/package/web-vitals) with their clients, forcing them to build their own analytics servers to understand what web-vitals complains about...or is often wrong about)