3 ms·
> But with 8kb zipped (I assume that following pages aren't that much worse) why should one optimize with a solution that adds that much complexity? If that's
by markdown 6y ago
> But with 8kb zipped (I assume that following pages aren't that much worse) why should one optimize with a solution that adds that much complexity?
If that's the argument, why not just let them take the (tiny) initial 8kb hit as an external css file, and make the rest of the experience even "zippier"?
- seanwilson 6y ago> why not just let them take the (tiny) initial 8kb hit as an external css file, One reason is Google will likely ding your Core Web Vitals score for it, which is becoming a ranking signal in May this year (https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2020/11/timing-for-page-experience https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2020/11/timing-for...) so you have less of a choice here for what you prioritise.
- sdoering 6y agoI would believe that 8k via an additional request would harm performance more than to inline it. But haven't tested that yet.
- markdown 6y agoIt would most certainly marginally harm performance a single time, but every additional page load would be much improved.