The README mentions the Google Lighthouse score for exampleSite. Without context, the user could believe that Gokarna's performance is "baked in", and requires no action on their part.
Moreover, Lighthouse continues to identify minor issues with Gokarna, which can be either avoided in source code, or by virtue of how the site is deployed.
Please read and discuss below if this is of interest. :point_down:
User sites
Unless we direct users to evaluate their site with Lighthouse (and highlight the benefits of doing so), some site configurations will be less than ideal.
e.g. Users who do not resize images, or use "modern" formats (such as WebP), are penalised.
Suggestion: Some site-level changes are easy to make statically (i.e. without the use of CDNs, load balancers, and other at-scale deployment mechanisms), and should be recommended in the Gokarna docs.
Problem Statement
The README mentions the Google Lighthouse score for exampleSite. Without context, the user could believe that Gokarna's performance is "baked in", and requires no action on their part.
Moreover, Lighthouse continues to identify minor issues with Gokarna, which can be either avoided in source code, or by virtue of how the site is deployed.
Please read and discuss below if this is of interest. :point_down:
User sites
Unless we direct users to evaluate their site with Lighthouse (and highlight the benefits of doing so), some site configurations will be less than ideal.
e.g. Users who do not resize images, or use "modern" formats (such as WebP), are penalised.
Suggestion: Some site-level changes are easy to make statically (i.e. without the use of CDNs, load balancers, and other at-scale deployment mechanisms), and should be recommended in the Gokarna docs.
:wave: I can pick this up after #243.
exampleSite
When reviewing the Lighthouse score for exampleSite, the following improvements are highlighted:
Can we identify which of these are addressable: