Numbers
Tags: corewebvitals, performance, metrics, measurements
Published: 2021-06-29 10:58:41

---
title: Numbers
published: true
date: 2021-04-20 16:53:09 UTC
tags: corewebvitals,performance,metrics,measurements
canonical_url: https://adactio.com/journal/18040
---

[Core web vitals](https://web.dev/vitals/) from Google are the ingredients for an alphabet soup of [exlusionary intialisms](https://adactio.com/journal/17770). But once you get past the unnecessary jargon, there’s a sensible approach underpinning the measurements.

[From May](https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2020/11/timing-for-page-experience)—no, [June](https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2021/04/more-details-page-experience)—these measurements will be a ranking signal for Google search so performance will become more of an SEO issue. This is good news. This is what Google should’ve done years ago instead of pissing up the wall with their dreadful and damaging [AMP](https://amp.dev/) project that blackmailed publishers into using a proprietary format in exchange for preferential search treatment. It was all done supposedly in the name of performance, but in reality all it did was antagonise users and publishers alike.

Core web vitals are an attempt to put numbers on user experience. This is always a tricky balancing act. You’ve got to watch out for [the McNamara fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy). Harry has already started [noticing this](https://twitter.com/csswizardry/status/1367809334923718656):

> A new and unusual phenomenon: clients reluctant (even refusing) to fix performance issues unless they directly improve Vitals.

Once you put a measurement on something, there’s a danger of focusing too much on the measurement. [Chris is worried](https://css-tricks.com/tricking-wcv/) that we’re going to see tips’n’tricks for gaming core web vitals:

> This feels like the start of a weird new era of web performance where the metrics of web performance have shifted to user-centric measurements, but people are implementing tricky strategies to game those numbers with methods that, if anything, _slightly_ harm user experience.

The map is not the territory. The numbers are a _proxy_ for user experience, but it’s notoriously difficult to measure intangible ideas like pain and frustration. As [Laurie says](https://twitter.com/laurieontech/status/1367816893873152000):

> This is 100% the downside of automatic tools that give you a “score”. It’s like gameification. It’s about hitting that perfect score instead of the holistic experience.

And [Ethan has written about the power imbalance](https://ethanmarcotte.com/wrote/au-revoir-mon-ampmour/) that exists when Google holds all the cards, whether it’s AMP or core web vitals:

> Google used its dominant position in the marketplace to force widespread adoption of a [largely proprietary](https://ethanmarcotte.com/wrote/seven-into-seven/) technology for creating websites. By switching to Core Web Vitals, those power dynamics haven’t materially changed.

We would do well to [remember](https://twitter.com/MCHammer/status/1363908982289559553):

> When you measure, include the measurer.

But if we’re going to put numbers to user experience, the core web vitals are a pretty good spread of measurements: [largest contentful paint](https://web.dev/lcp/), [cumulative layout shift](https://web.dev/cls/), and [first input delay](https://web.dev/fid/).

(If you prefer using initialisms, remember that CFP is Certified Financial Planner, CLS is Community Legal Services, and FID is Flame Ionization Detector. Together they form CWV, Catholic War Veterans.)