-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
The spec disagrees with developer documentation about whether precise layout-shift values/thresholds should be relied on #57
Comments
I believe the spec is talking about precision in the sense that a small-magnitude change could be expected from a user agent that is implementing the metric, or such deltas can be expected when comparing values between user-agents. This is because the spec provides some flexibility around edge cases and around performance optimizations that may be used to compute the shifts faster. Still, at the scale in which CLS is reported, 0.1 is actually pretty large (I know, not super intuitive), so I still think it makes sense for a developer to aim to be below that threshold while also not paying attention to very small deltas, orders of magnitude smaller than the target. Does this make sense? If so, we can update the spec text so that the intention behind the text is clearer. Let me know what you think! |
Maybe if we reworded the spec text to something like the following, it'd be clearer that you're intending to talk about precision in the sense of small variations being ignorable? Something like: (I don't love the word "reacting" here, but I can't think of a better word off the top of my head.) |
s/reacting to/worrying about? I like the suggestion, thanks! |
Sure, that sounds good. Thanks! |
The Layout Instability spec seems to be in conflict with Google's articles/documentation on how layout shift values should be used & thought about.
From the spec:
...vs, from Google's developer articles:
(Technically the spec text is about individual LS values rather than the CLS, but it still applies to the CLS score by extension, since the CLS is a sum of LS scores.)
The above-quoted spec text seems to be saying that the precise value (and precise thresholds like 0.1) aren't meaningful -- it sounds like it's saying authors should prefer to watch for increases/decreases rather than reasoning about any one precise value. However, this disagrees with the web.dev articles and pagespeed insights reports, which treat the precise values 0.1 and 0.25 as special thresholds.
If my reading of the spec isn't the intended meaning (i.e. if values are indeed intended to be meaningful on their own, rather than just metrics to watch for increases/decreases), then maybe that line of spec text should be reworded to clarify what it's trying to say?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: