Write content: Chapter 18. Page Weight

[rviscomi]

Part	Chapter	Authors	Reviewers	Analysts	Metrics	Analysis
IV. Content Distribution	18. Page Weight	@khempenius @tammyeverts	@paulcalvano @flowlabs	@khempenius	#20	#99

Due by: October 7

• Review the results spreadsheet and work with your analyst(s) (@khempenius) if you have any questions about the data.
• Write the contents of your chapter and get it peer reviewed (@paulcalvano @flowlabs).
• File a PR to merge your written contents in markdown format to the src/content/en/2019 directory.

Refer to the Authors' Guide for writing advice.

[rviscomi]

👋 Greetings! Just checking in to make sure this is progressing and remind you of the October 7 deadline timed so we can launch at Chrome Dev Summit.

The checklist above indicates that you still need to review the results, write content, and get it reviewed. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about the process.

[tammyeverts]

Hi all! I'll be wrapping up my contribution over the weekend. Just to make sure we're all on the same page, my understanding is that I'm writing more of an introduction to the chapter than an analysis of the data.

This is the outline of what I'll be writing, based on Rick's and my discussion a few months back:

• 1-2 paragraphs explaining each metric
• Comparison of YOY numbers (with the caveat that the datasets for previous years are different from that used for this report)
• Outside research demonstrating correlations between page weight and user behaviour and business metrics

Let me know if I'm off base or missing anything. I'll be drafting this in a Google doc, which I'm happy to share with you all when it's ready.

[khempenius]

@tammyeverts Ah good to know, I've been starting at a blank google doc the past couple day's with writer's block.

If you want to send your doc over to me once it's done, I can fill in the analysis part. I was planning on making graphs/visuals to represent the results of most of the queries.

[tammyeverts]

@khempenius Will do!

[rviscomi]

If it helps, I'm keeping track of the drafts other authors are writing in this sheet (column I). Feel free to take a peek at any for inspiration.

[tammyeverts]

Thanks, Rick!

Quick question about graphs: Is there a standard format you want to use for them? (I'm assuming there is.) I might want to include some graphs using outside data. What's the best way to make sure they match what Katie's creating with the HA data?

[khempenius]

Stylistically, I was thinking the graphs would probably each look a bit different because I don't think one format is going to work for all of them.

It's probably not what you're asking about, but if it helps, I've aggregated all the results from the HA data into one Google Sheet, so if that would be helpful resource I can share it with you. (It's on my corp account, so I think the only way I can share it externally is on an individual basis, otherwise I'd just paste the link here.)

[khempenius]

Hahah, nevermind, it looks like Rick had already done the exact same thing :)

[rviscomi]

Good question. We're designing our own Almanac data viz from scratch using the raw data in the spreadsheets.

I've just given you all edit access to the results sheet. So one option is to create your own charts in the sheet and copy/paste them into your draft doc, without worrying about their design. The design/development teams will work on stylizing them to be consistent with the rest of the Almanac.

Alternatively, the other option is to simply leave a placeholder in your doc with a note for the editor to insert the chart. Make sure to mention what kind of chart you have in mind and which metric it corresponds to (each tab in the spreadsheet is prefixed with a unique metric ID).

@tammyeverts If you have the raw data from the outside datasets, you could put those in the sheet and follow the same process. Otherwise feel free to copy/paste the images/URLs into the doc and we can add them to the chapter the old fashioned way with a simple <img> tag. Keep in mind that the third and final step for this issue is to submit a PR in markdown format, so externally hosted image URLs would be helpful, otherwise we'll need to find a place to host it locally.

[tammyeverts]

Perfect – thanks!

[tammyeverts]

Hey all! I thought I'd be able to wrap up my contribution this morning, but I'd forgotten that two of my fellow SpeedCurvers are on vacation this week, and I'm helping cover for them – ack! I should be able to finish things up this evening. Is that ok?

[rviscomi]

No problem! Thanks for the heads up.

[tammyeverts]

Intro is DONE. Thanks for your patience, everyone! It turns out that covering for two people who are on vacation is a bit more time-consuming than I'd expected.

Here's the link to view and edit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FlJIcfjLLZ_U5JhfBy3fZq_VCLd8oC8kDoLsxsQTzRs/edit?usp=sharing

[tammyeverts]

Hey all. I'm a bit fuzzy about the next phase. I see at the top of this ticket that we're supposed to get the chapter peer reviewed by Paul and Rich. Who's supposed to do that?

[rviscomi]

@khempenius and @henrisgh should contribute their sections to the doc. Have you all divided up which parts will be written by whom?

You could have @paulcalvano and @flowlabs review the sections that are already written or it may be best to do it all at once when it's complete.

[khempenius]

I've added the analysis section to the doc. I'm not quite done with it - but I'll add the remainder later tonight.

[khempenius]

After going back and forth a lot on this, I ended up not adding a section to the doc re: file format sizes. The more I looked at the results, the more I felt that more investigation would be needed to do it justice. Otherwise I think it would be easy to draw the incorrect conclusions from the data - e.g. "X format is better than Y format because median file size is smaller" - but that's masking that X format is used for icons; and Y format is used for large photos. And I think that data would take a bit of legwork to collect.

[rviscomi]

Thanks @khempenius. I think your reaction is totally valid and would still be appropriate to discuss in the chapter. One of the things that makes the Almanac special compared to a report like this is that authors provide context and their interpretation of the data. So if you've found pitfalls in the results, that's all the more reason to talk about them and make sure others don't fall for them. You could also describe what could be done differently to be able to make those conclusions and that could be a note for us to improve next year.

[khempenius]

Discussion added 👍 (unfortunately it's kind of long).

[rviscomi]

@khempenius @tammyeverts @henrisgh The draft is looking great so far. There's still some unfinished content. Would it be possible to wrap this up by the end of the week?

@paulcalvano @flowlabs: Do you have time to give the current draft a review?

[khempenius]

@rviscomi I'll take a look today. Sorry for delay - it looks like I don't get notifications for google doc comments.

[khempenius]

Updated

[tammyeverts]

I've updated my section. Thanks for the great feedback @rviscomi! I looked at the rest of the chapter, as well. Looks awesome, @khempenius!

…

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:07 PM Katie Hempenius ***@***.***> wrote: Updated — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#144?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADXPP2ARBPJ6J5JUBT2PJR3QQJ5HTA5CNFSM4IUSEHZKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECHGHTI#issuecomment-546202573>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADXPP2D6TV3T6LP2PCSVC53QQJ5HTANCNFSM4IUSEHZA> .

[rviscomi]

Agreed, looks great. Left one suggestion with a writing prompt for a conclusion.

Also, @paulcalvano @flowlabs now is a good time to go through the draft and do a peer review.

[rviscomi]

Henri has been MIA so removing as an author :(

[tammyeverts]

Great! I'm assuming the writing prompt is for Katie, since it's at the end of her section? Let me know if you need me to help with that. What do you need from me in terms of author bio? I don't think I've sent over anything yet. Tammy

…

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:30 AM Rick Viscomi ***@***.***> wrote: Agreed, looks great. Left one suggestion with a writing prompt for a conclusion. Also, @paulcalvano <https://github.com/paulcalvano> @flowlabs <https://github.com/flowlabs> now is a good time to go through the draft and do a peer review. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#144?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADXPP2HQSTA2KDDTKQEUTYLQQM3NRA5CNFSM4IUSEHZKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECJF2WQ#issuecomment-546463066>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADXPP2HX5KAMGDNL2M3HENDQQM3NRANCNFSM4IUSEHZA> .

[rviscomi]

The conclusion could be written by either/both of you. @khempenius do you have time to write it?

Good call on the bio. I just opened #239. Could you add yours as a comment there?

Edit: Oh I had this comment drafted before I talked to Katie. She's writing the conclusion :)

[tammyeverts]

Awesome – thanks for the update!

I just added my bio to #239. Let me know if you need anything else.

[khempenius]

Added conclusion

[rviscomi]

@paulcalvano @flowlabs have you had a chance to review the draft doc?

[paulcalvano]

Just added some comments to the doc. Great job on this!

[rviscomi]

I think the doc is in great shape. @khempenius or @tammyeverts can you file a PR to get the markdown merged?

[khempenius]

@rviscomi @tammyeverts - I'm starting on creating the markdown for this.