Tools & Wizards About Us
futurecamp.vision screenshot

Report Summary

  • 30

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    50% of other websites

  • 45

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 19% of websites

  • 83

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    55% of websites

  • 92

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    74% of websites

futurecamp.vision

future.camp® promotes sustainable lifestyles. Reduce your personal ecological footprint!

Page Load Speed

2.6 sec in total

First Response

95 ms

Resources Loaded

2 sec

Page Rendered

438 ms

futurecamp.vision screenshot

About Website

Click here to check amazing Future Camp content. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about futurecamp.vision

future.camp® is a competence center for sustainable lifestyles, based in Zürich, Switzerland. It conveys concepts and solutions that allow consumers of the future to actively influence the environment...

Visit futurecamp.vision

Key Findings

We analyzed Futurecamp.vision page load time and found that the first response time was 95 ms and then it took 2.5 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 50% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

futurecamp.vision performance score

30

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value7.2 s

1/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value39.3 s

0/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value8.6 s

17/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value810 ms

36/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0

100/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value10.2 s

25/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

futurecamp.vision

95 ms

t.js

36 ms

viewer.css

85 ms

viewer.js

157 ms

864c912a687d4bae8cdff98cff0e1d6a.js

306 ms

Our browser made a total of 15 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 27% of them (4 requests) were addressed to the original Futurecamp.vision, 20% (3 requests) were made to Components.mywebsitebuilder.com and 20% (3 requests) were made to Storage.googleapis.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (760 ms) relates to the external source Webzaitest.blob.core.windows.net.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 184.3 kB (5%)

Content Size

4.0 MB

After Optimization

3.8 MB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript

In fact, the total size of Futurecamp.vision main page is 4.0 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. 20% of websites need less resources to load. Images take 3.8 MB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-88%

Potential reduce by 135.3 kB

  • Original 154.6 kB
  • After minification 154.6 kB
  • After compression 19.3 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. HTML code on this page is well minified. It is highly recommended that content of this web page should be compressed using GZIP, as it can save up to 135.3 kB or 88% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-1%

Potential reduce by 48.9 kB

  • Original 3.8 MB
  • After minification 3.8 MB

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. Future Camp images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-42%

Potential reduce by 20 B

  • Original 48 B
  • After minification 28 B
  • After compression 28 B

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. It is highly recommended that all JavaScript files should be compressed and minified as it can save up to 20 B or 42% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

We found no issues to fix!

Requests Now

11

After Optimization

11

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 11 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Future Camp. According to our analytics all requests are already optimized.

Network Requests Diagram

futurecamp.vision

futurecamp.vision

95 ms

t.js

t.js

36 ms

viewer.css

viewer.css

85 ms

viewer.js

viewer.js

157 ms

864c912a687d4bae8cdff98cff0e1d6a.js

864c912a687d4bae8cdff98cff0e1d6a.js

306 ms

3834e08b16c54cad85afeca303477b85.js

3834e08b16c54cad85afeca303477b85.js

365 ms

f601962221cd42c5bb9dfe2390f23c2f.js

f601962221cd42c5bb9dfe2390f23c2f.js

437 ms

localize.sitey.com

localize.sitey.com

225 ms

318 ms

203 ms

141 ms

JYwDjrpa8U6xfI7FKlWegw.woff

JYwDjrpa8U6xfI7FKlWegw.woff

513 ms

ALyKWGaVsEemWmMSYxY8yg.woff

ALyKWGaVsEemWmMSYxY8yg.woff

536 ms

yt_icon_rgb.png

yt_icon_rgb.png

80 ms

webzai-icons.woff

webzai-icons.woff

760 ms

Accessibility Review

futurecamp.vision accessibility score

45

Accessibility Issues

Internationalization and localization

These are opportunities to improve the interpretation of your content by users in different locales.

Impact

Issue

High

<html> element does not have a [lang] attribute

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

Image elements do not have [alt] attributes

High

Links do not have a discernible name

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

futurecamp.vision best practices score

83

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

Low

Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks

SEO Factors

futurecamp.vision SEO score

92

Search Engine Optimization Advices

Content Best Practices

Format your HTML in a way that enables crawlers to better understand your app’s content.

Impact

Issue

High

Image elements do not have [alt] attributes

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

    N/A

  • Encoding

    UTF-8

Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Futurecamp.vision can be misinterpreted by Google and other search engines. Our service has detected that English is used on the page, and neither this language nor any other was claimed in <html> or <meta> tags. Our system also found out that Futurecamp.vision 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

futurecamp.vision

Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Future Camp. 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: