
Mobile Website Speed Testing Tool - natvert
http://testmysite.withgoogle.com
======
tyre
Dark pattern pet peeve once you complete the test. The options are either:

    
    
      Yes, send me my report and occasional emails with helpful
      tips on how to improve my online presence. Google may send
      me recommendations for certain Google products and services
      and contact me with further help and tips based on my
      TestMySite results.
    

Or:

    
    
      No thanks, I don’t want to get my detailed results.
    

What if I want to get my results, but not subscribe to your marketing drip
campaign?

Screenshot:
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/csm6j5u9hq5wubw/Screenshot%202017-...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/csm6j5u9hq5wubw/Screenshot%202017-01-10%2013.32.32.png?dl=0)

~~~
armenarmen
The quid pro quo bit seems pretty standard and reasonable, annoying but
reasonable

~~~
ronilan
Yes it is.

But then again, providing the user with a unique shareable URL would be much
better for the user.

And, this is just my own opinion[1], obviously, but, providing the best user
experience possible, whether designing a new Internet browser or a new tweak
to the look of the homepage is very important. It is wise to take great care
to ensure that services will ultimately serve the user, rather than the
provider's internal goal or bottom line. When building new tools and
applications, they should work so well you don’t have to consider how they
might have been designed differently.

[1] well not really mine...
[https://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/](https://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/)

------
BugsJustFindMe
I ran it on a tiny static 99.9% text-only site that finishes loading in 0.15s,
a full 0.1s of which is a 1.5KB creative commons graphic, and google knocks 9
points off on mobile because I don't defer the 8ms request for 374 bytes of
CSS? Seems arbitrary.

~~~
markdown
> 374 bytes of CSS

Put it <style> tags in the <head>. No reason to use an external file for so
little. It's not worth the overhead.

~~~
TheAceOfHearts
What size cutoff would you use for the <style> tag? In other words, at what
point is the tradeoff worth it?

~~~
jansenv
I think its around 30kb.

[https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2015/08/understanding-
criti...](https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2015/08/understanding-critical-
css/)

------
mattei
The PageSpeed Insights[0] tool is better. Less scrolling to see results,
actionable steps to fix issues and no scroll hijacking. Also seems to scan
websites quicker.

[0]
[https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/](https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/)

~~~
zuccs
This is just a pretty version more focussed on consumers with little tech
background.

~~~
mattei
PageSpeed Insights has a banner stating to use this new option, indicating it
will become the only option in the future.

------
chrischen
I find testing using these types of tools better, as it gives a real world
performance metric (actual load times)
[https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/dJNbUe/www.instapainting.com](https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/dJNbUe/www.instapainting.com)

~~~
thekonqueror
You should try
[http://mobitest.akamai.com/m/index.cgi](http://mobitest.akamai.com/m/index.cgi)
or [http://webpagetest.org](http://webpagetest.org) instead for accurate
results.

------
zimmerx
Speaking to some of the Google developers and the head of mobile web
performance - not even Google use their own tool as a measure / benchmark for
performance. PageSpeed Insights is both broken and convoluted at best.

\- No support for HTTP/2 \-- This means that if you follow all the "right"
approaches for performance with HTTP/2, you'll be slapped with a terrible
PageSpeed score due to it not taking into account the effect of multi plexing
connections. \- Has constant bugs around determining the flow of assets on the
page and thinks that assets at the bottom become render blocking when they do
not

Google tend to use a combination of their own tooling + WebPageTest.org (which
is also theirs) to test performance issues.

This tool is mainly geared at the non-developer type, but it's unfortunately
misleading and just wrong. It doesn't measure speed, it measures performance
methodologies and whether they have been implemented or not (and old ones at
that).

The more important metrics are time to paint, time to domcontentready. Using
WebPageTest will get you what you want. I find it pretty offensive and
misleading that Google is using such a tool and promoting it to users, because
frankly it misses the entire point of performance.

Things like this: "Eliminate render-blocking JavaScript and CSS in above-the-
fold content" when you're running an H/2 site with an appcache and pushing
assets is just downright wrong.

It's sad that there's a general miscommunication within the company about
performance. Ilya Gregorik and co say one thing, and the rest say another.

------
pbhjpbhj
"withgoogle.com" looks like a phishing domain. What's wrong with subdomains?

~~~
BillinghamJ
Different security requirements. I believe anything under google.com is
subject to quite strict rules.

------
Jugurtha
I don't understand. Why not simply use PageSpeed where it tells you exactly
what to fix to improve each aspect?

[https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/](https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/)

~~~
shakna
They seem to be in the process of replacing PageSpeed.

First:

> PageSpeed Insights has moved the User Experience test for mobile pages into
> the Mobile Friendly Test

And then a bigger launch about this fancier version.

~~~
Jugurtha
Mobile Friendly(MF) is worse than PageSpeed Insights(PSI) in every possible
(perceivable) way:

\- PSI is fast. MF is slow.

\- PSI is general (mobile and desktop). MF is, well, for mobile.

\- PSI just asks for the site, gives you results. MF checks if you're a robot,
you check a site, and checks again you're not a robot if you want to use it
again.

\- PSI gives you exactly what's wrong with your site, which rules were broken,
and _how_ to fix them. Which lines to add to your CSS. _Where_ to add them
(deferring loading CSS if you want to, adding JavaScript), and gives you a
score for each thing, if you change stuff you can look at your score improve.
It then orients you to resources for additional reading. MF is binary: good,
not good. Doesn't give you info. Doesn't give you actionable info. Gives you
basically nothing.

I don't see _any_ reason to use MF (or for it to even exist under its current
form and non-features) and every reason to use PSI. Then again, every time I
discover a Google product, after a few days I have the misfortune of seeing a
red warning telling me it'll be discontinued. It's happened many times.

------
elktea
Looks like a nice skin on top of the existing PageSpeed tools

------
deepuj
Meh, they make you sign up with email to see full results.

------
avenoir
If it provides the scores I'm assuming it also has detailed information on how
those scores were calculated. Why not provide the detailed results right away
instead of collecting emails. Every time I see "Get Something Free" or
something similar my bullshit meter starts peaking right away.

------
justinsaccount
Neat, I had it report on itself..

    
    
      DESKTOP SPEED 96/100 GOOD
      MOBILE SPEED 94/100 GOOD
      MOBILE FRIENDLINESS 100/100 GOOD

~~~
zitterbewegung
[http://www.google.com/](http://www.google.com/) gets 100 out of 100 for
everything.

~~~
akjainaj
hahahaha, it looks like they hit their own captcha!
[http://i.imgur.com/cnPWqwz.png](http://i.imgur.com/cnPWqwz.png)

------
brian_herman
[http://imgur.com/tRkHsPA](http://imgur.com/tRkHsPA) They seem to be using
chrome 27.

------
TheAceOfHearts
Just tried it out, now waiting for the reports.

It'd be nice if they let me sign in with my Google account, so I can generate
multiple reports without having to repeatedly type in my email. It seems
reasonable to assume that anyone that uses a tool like this would likely have
multiple pages or sites they'd want to check, no?

------
dx034
I tested reddit (which I hate using on mobile), and it got a Poor 63/100 for
speed while high marks for mobile optimization. I guess it's a perfect
representation of many SPAs out there. Fancy JS frameworks that are built for
mobile, but it takes 10s+ to load if you're not on Wifi/4G.

------
mrmondo
Ironically this site does not work correctly for me on my phone. On the latest
stable safari and iOS version the field to enter your email to get the report
is missing. No ad blockers enabled etc...

------
greenspot
They say that more people surf the web on mobile than on desktop.

Does anyone has some more data on this? What do they include in 'mobile', also
tablets?

I surf on my phone a lot but I still surf on my notebook as well, actually the
entire day at the office

~~~
pmlnr
Have you considered this might include China, India, etc., you know, outside
the US? :)

[https://www.techinasia.com/china-mobile-internet-users-
stati...](https://www.techinasia.com/china-mobile-internet-users-statistics-
behavior)

------
pmlnr
Dear Google,

Stripping metadata from images is _not_ optimization. Please stop recommending
this.

------
chinathrow
That site uses my speakers on mobile chrome. Does anyone know why?

~~~
michelb
It plays a video, even though it has no sound your browser will show a speaker
icon.

------
CaptSpify
Hm... It doesn't return anything for my site. It runs the tests, says 100%
done, then returns to the home-screen without an input field.

Anyone else?

~~~
shakna
I had to disable my adblocker for it to not do that.

~~~
CaptSpify
Hmmm. didn't seem to work for me, but thanks

------
runn1ng
When you test google.com with this, you get captchas as a preview.

And I guess the captcha page is what this tests then.

------
ThomPete
"Eliminate render-blocking JavaScript and CSS in above-the-fold content"

What does this mean exactly?

~~~
lucideer
This means any CSS or JS that delays ("blocks") rendering of "above-the-fold
content" (content you see immediately - before scrolling) should be removed or
made non-blocking.

~~~
ThomPete
ahh ok got it thanks

