RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Call for Consensus: Incubations adoption

Microsoft supports most of the proposals (event timing, element timing, isInputPending, layout instability) except some concern over LCP.

Quoting an engineer working on large web apps:
“I think this metric can be misleading. Although there was a switch from FMP to LCP (Largest), we should be careful assuming that the largest element is the most important to the user when measuring user experience. I might be wrong, but to me it feels like this metric was designed to support automated tools like LightHouse, without any developers’ annotations. “



From: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:34 AM
To: Benjamin De Kosnik <bdekoz@mozilla.com>
Cc: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>; public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>; Nic Jansma <nic@nicj.net>; Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>; Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Call for Consensus: Incubations adoption



On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 1:29 AM Benjamin De Kosnik <bdekoz@mozilla.com<mailto:bdekoz@mozilla.com>> wrote:


Mozilla is interested in prototyping layout instability, but is concerned about the potential overhead in making this a part of a standard and required for every page load.

Is the concern around implementation overhead, due to buffering?

Implementation overhead, additional traversing of paint trees or marking items, buffering, etc. We'll know soon enough, and then report back.

To be clear, the CFC is about whether this is a draft the WG wants to adopt as a Working Draft, not whether this is e.g. ready to advance in the standards track beyond it.
The question is, do we want the exploration to continue to happen in the WICG for now, or move to the WG?

Seems like a great first topic for the next call.

Great, I'll add it then! :)


best,
-benjamin