-
Posts
-
Hi,
You will see that those items are from two of your plugin when you examine the file path:
/wp-content/cache/fvm/
/wp-content/plugins/ewww-image-optimizer/
and the last one is your google tag manager, so you will probably want to leave all of these as is, since you already stated that your site is even slower without these plugins.Best regards,
Mikeam trying just deactivating the fvm one since it seems to be designed for developers etc. Author talks about how things will probably need to be set different for each website, and I could not get a response from him on questions.
Leaving the theme minification/compressions in place though.
Should the theme minify/compress/etc. performance tools take care of these blocking links (this is from webpagetest.net checking gatehealing.com/counseling-austin-tx )?
The main thread was blocked for 1074 ms
When files block the main thread, users are unable to interact with the page content. Typically, parsing and executing large JavaScript files, as well as running long JavaScript tasks can block the main thread and should be avoided. These files had high thread blocking times:
92 ms: https://gatehealing.com/counseling-austin-tx/
487 ms: https://gatehealing.com/wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery.min.js?ver=3.7.1
89 ms: https://gatehealing.com/wp-includes/js/mediaelement/mediaelement-and-player.min.js?ver=4.2.17
147 ms: https://gatehealing.com/wp-content/uploads/dynamic_avia/avia-footer-scripts-4934294d32706be40b07cbd8f21642e1—664f95ba05137.jsThe other 2 were the ewww plugin and gtag.
JonHi,
When I check your site on webpagetest.org for mobile it loads in 3.449s – 3.360s – 3.669s in three tests which I think is very good, you do have some blocking time while the javascript loads but I don’t think that you will get this to zero. Please consider that your blocking time would be more if the javascript was not combined.Best regards,
Mike@Mike
The warning is under the Is It Usable tab (“needs improvement” is the comment associated with it…vs the others ‘not bad’). . . I know that user experience is a part of ranking so am hoping to improve whatever I canhttps://www.webpagetest.org/result/240530_BiDcNR_88R/
On the test you ran above, on the results, it’s under Performance Summary, which is in the white section (right after the darker header). It’s the middle result “Is It Usable”…when you click those words, it’ll take you to the results that triggered thisI’m just going to get rid of all video elements on my website entirely. When I just put a slider up there, I get a 94. I don’t know what it is about the video element and the fallback image, but it screws things up.
I still get the same Is It Usable warning of “needs improvement” after removing the video element, but PSI improves a lot and debugbear stays good, just ttfb needs some tweaking.
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/240530_AiDc9W_EJJ/2/experiments/#UsableHi,
I don’t have any ideas to improve your score any further, this last report is referring to 430 ms, which is less that a half of a second with a total load time of 4.049s and some times in earlier reports it was as low as 3s.
This is very good, and over the last hundred posts we have achieved a lot, but I don’t have any ideas that we have not already covered.
If you like I can ask the rest of the team if they have any ideas.Best regards,
MikeOh, no…I was more updating that I think we have it as good as it’ll get and that I’ll tweak the ttfb. Just removing the video element is what really sped things up. I tried everything I could think of to be able to leave that element on those pages, but it looks like it just does not play well with performance, specifically the fallback image seems to bypass a lot of the performance improvement tools. I don’t understand it, but I can just put all videos on the video library page then nofollow/no-index it so it’s less likely to be factored into my overall domain score/performance.
Thanks for all of the help!
J
- The topic ‘Video fallback image causing enormous performance issues on mobile devices.’ is closed to new replies.