Tools & Wizards About Us
chucksscreeningco.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 45

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    64% of other websites

  • 76

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 42% of websites

  • 83

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    55% of websites

  • 93

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    83% of websites

chucksscreeningco.com

Chuck's Screening Co. - Rescreening in Hollywood, FL

Page Load Speed

2 sec in total

First Response

470 ms

Resources Loaded

1.3 sec

Page Rendered

245 ms

chucksscreeningco.com screenshot

About Website

Click here to check amazing Chuck S Screening Co content. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about chucksscreeningco.com

Looking for an expert in rescreening for a window, patio, or pool cover? Contact the window screening company of Chuck's Screening Co. in Hollywood, FL.

Visit chucksscreeningco.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Chucksscreeningco.com page load time and found that the first response time was 470 ms and then it took 1.6 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 35% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

chucksscreeningco.com performance score

45

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value4.5 s

15/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value4.6 s

34/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value6.8 s

35/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value710 ms

42/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.073

96/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value8.1 s

42/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

chucksscreeningco.com

470 ms

style.css

25 ms

font-awesome.min.css

82 ms

style.min.css

50 ms

biziq-plugins.css

62 ms

Our browser made a total of 55 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 73% of them (40 requests) were addressed to the original Chucksscreeningco.com, 4% (2 requests) were made to Stackpath.bootstrapcdn.com and 4% (2 requests) were made to Fonts.googleapis.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (470 ms) belongs to the original domain Chucksscreeningco.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 80.1 kB (6%)

Content Size

1.3 MB

After Optimization

1.2 MB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Chucksscreeningco.com main page is 1.3 MB. This result falls beyond the top 1M of websites and identifies a large and not optimized web page that may take ages to load. 70% of websites need less resources to load. Images take 834.2 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-77%

Potential reduce by 31.0 kB

  • Original 40.2 kB
  • After minification 34.4 kB
  • After compression 9.2 kB

HTML content can be minified and compressed by a website’s server. The most efficient way is to compress content using GZIP which reduces data amount travelling through the network between server and browser. This page needs HTML code to be minified as it can gain 5.8 kB, which is 14% of the original size. It is highly recommended that content of this web page should be compressed using GZIP, as it can save up to 31.0 kB or 77% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-0%

Potential reduce by 2.3 kB

  • Original 834.2 kB
  • After minification 831.8 kB

Image size optimization can help to speed up a website loading time. The chart above shows the difference between the size before and after optimization. Chuck S Screening Co images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-9%

Potential reduce by 33.6 kB

  • Original 360.1 kB
  • After minification 360.1 kB
  • After compression 326.5 kB

It’s better to minify JavaScript in order to improve website performance. The diagram shows the current total size of all JavaScript files against the prospective JavaScript size after its minification and compression. This website has mostly compressed JavaScripts.

CSS Optimization

-34%

Potential reduce by 13.1 kB

  • Original 39.2 kB
  • After minification 27.9 kB
  • After compression 26.1 kB

CSS files minification is very important to reduce a web page rendering time. The faster CSS files can load, the earlier a page can be rendered. Chucksscreeningco.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 13.1 kB or 34% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 35 (69%)

Requests Now

51

After Optimization

16

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 51 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Chuck S Screening Co. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 19 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 18 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

chucksscreeningco.com

chucksscreeningco.com

470 ms

style.css

style.css

25 ms

font-awesome.min.css

font-awesome.min.css

82 ms

style.min.css

style.min.css

50 ms

biziq-plugins.css

biziq-plugins.css

62 ms

styles.css

styles.css

146 ms

prettyPhoto.css

prettyPhoto.css

50 ms

plugins.css

plugins.css

49 ms

themeblvd.css

themeblvd.css

71 ms

nav.min.css

nav.min.css

63 ms

theme.min.css

theme.min.css

63 ms

menus.min.css

menus.min.css

70 ms

boxed-light.min.css

boxed-light.min.css

76 ms

light.min.css

light.min.css

77 ms

responsive.min.css

responsive.min.css

127 ms

jquery.js

jquery.js

276 ms

jquery-migrate.min.js

jquery-migrate.min.js

129 ms

jquery.prettyPhoto.js

jquery.prettyPhoto.js

128 ms

superfish.js

superfish.js

129 ms

flexslider.js

flexslider.js

128 ms

roundabout.js

roundabout.js

130 ms

alyeska.min.js

alyeska.min.js

130 ms

css

css

124 ms

js

js

131 ms

comment-reply.min.js

comment-reply.min.js

130 ms

review-widget.js

review-widget.js

134 ms

scripts.js

scripts.js

134 ms

api.js

api.js

124 ms

wp-embed.min.js

wp-embed.min.js

134 ms

lazyload.min.js

lazyload.min.js

135 ms

webfont.js

webfont.js

60 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

64 ms

styles.css

styles.css

349 ms

js-1-0.js

js-1-0.js

352 ms

wp-emoji-release.min.js

wp-emoji-release.min.js

44 ms

font-awesome.min.css

font-awesome.min.css

37 ms

background.jpg

background.jpg

58 ms

main-top-boxed-light.png

main-top-boxed-light.png

56 ms

menu-classic-black.png

menu-classic-black.png

73 ms

main-boxed-light.png

main-boxed-light.png

171 ms

main-bottom-boxed-light.png

main-bottom-boxed-light.png

57 ms

css

css

21 ms

font

font

60 ms

recaptcha__en.js

recaptcha__en.js

75 ms

hero.jpg

hero.jpg

45 ms

homeimage.jpg

homeimage.jpg

44 ms

google.png

google.png

55 ms

bing.png

bing.png

43 ms

yelp.png

yelp.png

44 ms

facebook.png

facebook.png

55 ms

staticmap.png

staticmap.png

55 ms

fontawesome-webfont.woff

fontawesome-webfont.woff

44 ms

fontawesome-webfont.woff

fontawesome-webfont.woff

43 ms

font

font

34 ms

text-gradient.png

text-gradient.png

54 ms

Accessibility Review

chucksscreeningco.com accessibility score

76

Accessibility Issues

Contrast

These are opportunities to improve the legibility of your content.

Impact

Issue

High

Background and foreground colors do not have a sufficient contrast ratio.

Names and labels

These are opportunities to improve the semantics of the controls in your application. This may enhance the experience for users of assistive technology, like a screen reader.

Impact

Issue

High

Links do not have a discernible name

Tables and lists

These are opportunities to improve the experience of reading tabular or list data using assistive technology, like a screen reader.

Impact

Issue

High

Lists do not contain only <li> elements and script supporting elements (<script> and <template>).

Best practices

These items highlight common accessibility best practices.

Impact

Issue

High

[user-scalable="no"] is used in the <meta name="viewport"> element or the [maximum-scale] attribute is less than 5.

Best Practices

chucksscreeningco.com best practices score

83

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

High

Includes front-end JavaScript libraries with known security vulnerabilities

Low

Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

High

Page has valid source maps

SEO Factors

chucksscreeningco.com SEO score

93

Search Engine Optimization Advices

Crawling and Indexing

To appear in search results, crawlers need access to your app.

Impact

Issue

High

Links are not crawlable

Mobile Friendly

Make sure your pages are mobile friendly so users don’t have to pinch or zoom in order to read the content pages. [Learn more](https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/).

Impact

Issue

High

Document uses legible font sizes

Language and Encoding

  • Language Detected

    EN

  • Language Claimed

    EN

  • Encoding

    UTF-8

Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Chucksscreeningco.com can be misinterpreted by Google and other search engines. Our service has detected that English is used on the page, and it matches the claimed language. Our system also found out that Chucksscreeningco.com main page’s claimed encoding is utf-8. Use of this encoding format is the best practice as the main page visitors from all over the world won’t have any issues with symbol transcription.

Social Sharing Optimization

chucksscreeningco.com

Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Chuck S Screening Co. Lack of Open Graph description can be counter-productive for their social media presence, as such a description allows converting a website homepage (or other pages) into good-looking, rich and well-structured posts, when it is being shared on Facebook and other social media. For example, adding the following code snippet into HTML <head> tag will help to represent this web page correctly in social networks: