4 ms·
> I'm curious where the majority of the win came from? Great question! The boost can be explained by JS vs. raw HTML+CSS performance. In the past, we sent a d
by adchurch 4y ago
> I'm curious where the majority of the win came from?
Great question! The boost can be explained by JS vs. raw HTML+CSS performance.
In the past, we sent a dummy loading screen but we then had to download tons of JS + run that to even show a "real" loading screen (i.e. page-specific loading screen).
Now, the HTML response (which you can inspect yourself, `curl https://my.causal.app https://my.causal.app`) already has a skeleton of the page, which doesn't need any JS to download and run before showing the "real" loading screen.
The UX is better because users spend noticeably less time staring at a blank screen and there's much less layout shift too!
- bgirard 4y agoWhich metric improved by 70%? Time to show the skeleton? I agree the skeleton is quite good. I see it takes about 350ms to show the skeleton and about 1s to show my content.
- adchurch 4y agoYep - the metric was First Contentful Paint, which is basically the time-to-skeleton in our case :)