- From: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:55:28 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-web-perf@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CADXXVKqGDVYsnY4-_+Lz1UvZMOa_3QOqefmFYgSO1k1s=M=5-Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > *TL;DR:* In my opinion, time to first paint is definitely more than a >> "feel good" metric. In fact, it is something we want to highlight to >> site owners and developers and get them thinking about. >> > > OK. I agree that we want people to think about the issue of layout and > painting being blocked on scripts. > > The hard bit for me is that the common user-perceived lag has to do with > one of two things, as far as I can tell: > > 1) Layout not starting due to pending scripts/stylesheets. This has > nothing to do with painting per se. > > 2) Layout starting but there not being anything to render because it's > all generated via script onload or on DOMContentLoaded or is display:none > until something happens. This would not be detected by a "first paint" > metric, because the browser will happily paint a white viewport. Right, both (1) and (2) are contextual to each individual page. However, perhaps somewhat naively, I still equate the "layout flush" to "first paint".. That is, coming back to "user sees something" definition. What the user sees is a separate story for the site owner to worry about. For Gmail, it's a loading screen, for another site it may be a blank frame - we should leave this to the site owners. Ilya
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 17:56:37 UTC