On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 1:58 AM Ian Withrow <ian.withrow@appdynamics.com> wrote: > Long time listener, first time commenter. > Welcome to the tribe! :) > Agree with Phillip and others based on my experience with AppDynamics' > customer base. Any capability that requires per app customization is > largely targeting the 1% of accounts that have committed to web performance > very deeply. This group is also heavily skewed towards some verticals like > e-commerce. Most enterprises haven't prioritized custom instrumentation to > date. > > What is the goal for this groups' enhancement pipeline at the moment? For > instance if the goal is it to provide the best possible tools for those > committed to web perf then the above feedback is besides the point. > Per our charter <http://w3c.github.io/charter-webperf/>: "The Web Performance Working Group's scope of work includes user agent features and APIs to observe and improve aspects of application performance". We intentionally do not target a particular type of user or site, as the goal is to improve performance broadly across the web and for all users on the web. As such, I would personally consider it a failure if the solutions and proposals we come up with are only able to benefit, or be used by, a small subset of sites or motivated perf geeks. On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:32 AM Fred Short <fshort3@gmail.com> wrote: > Agree, I would just add that ET needs to expand beyond images and text to > be a good alternate option. > Yep, fair. Would love to hear your thoughts on what those are and their relative priority.. Albeit, probably a conversation we should push to GitHub so we can keep track and iterate on details. ig
Received on Friday, 26 April 2019 16:10:29 UTC