2.9 sec in total
106 ms
2.6 sec
168 ms
Visit lifeweb.org now to see the best up-to-date Life Web content and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about lifeweb.org
Offering a wide selection of design and development services, we're positioned to be your one-stop development source.
Visit lifeweb.orgWe analyzed Lifeweb.org page load time and found that the first response time was 106 ms and then it took 2.8 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 50% of websites can load faster.
lifeweb.org performance score
name
value
score
weighting
Value5.5 s
6/100
10%
Value7.4 s
4/100
25%
Value9.8 s
10/100
10%
Value5,380 ms
0/100
30%
Value0.38
27/100
15%
Value19.9 s
2/100
10%
106 ms
129 ms
458 ms
63 ms
38 ms
Our browser made a total of 50 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 2% of them (1 request) were addressed to the original Lifeweb.org, 46% (23 requests) were made to Kgroupcompanies.com and 26% (13 requests) were made to Use.typekit.net. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (1.3 sec) relates to the external source Use.typekit.net.
Page size can be reduced by 109.4 kB (22%)
504.2 kB
394.8 kB
In fact, the total size of Lifeweb.org main page is 504.2 kB. This result falls beyond the top 1M of websites and identifies a large and not optimized web page that may take ages to load. 30% of websites need less resources to load. Javascripts take 257.1 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.
Potential reduce by 28.5 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 4.4 kB, which is 12% 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 28.5 kB or 75% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 6.9 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. Life Web images are well optimized though.
Potential reduce by 48.8 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. It is highly recommended that all JavaScript files should be compressed and minified as it can save up to 48.8 kB or 19% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 25.2 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. Lifeweb.org needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 25.2 kB or 41% of the original size.
Number of requests can be reduced by 30 (86%)
35
5
The browser has sent 35 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Life Web. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 24 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 8 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.
lifeweb.org
106 ms
www.kdatasystems.net
129 ms
k-data-systems
458 ms
gtm.js
63 ms
lite-yt-embed.min.css
38 ms
module.css
83 ms
skin.css
120 ms
kds-home-page.css
246 ms
portal.css
222 ms
jquery.js
312 ms
jquery-migrate.js
224 ms
jquery-ui.min.js
364 ms
js.cookie.min.js
239 ms
bootstrap.bundle.min.js
348 ms
theme.es5.min.js
261 ms
lite-yt-embed.min.js
277 ms
jquery.youtube-background.min.js
287 ms
WebResource.axd
322 ms
ScriptResource.axd
358 ms
ScriptResource.axd
324 ms
dnn.modalpopup.js
354 ms
jquery.hoverIntent.min.js
353 ms
dnncore.js
384 ms
opencontent.js
386 ms
142c85d0ee.js
79 ms
css2
37 ms
aui8stj.css
1263 ms
platform.js
43 ms
js
59 ms
kds-logo@1x.png
45 ms
kds-1-crop.jpg
121 ms
tracking.js
22 ms
cjzfwf4nw6
42 ms
up.js
20 ms
clarity.js
15 ms
p.css
45 ms
zi-tag.js
31 ms
d
326 ms
d
148 ms
d
282 ms
d
411 ms
d
215 ms
d
308 ms
d
294 ms
d
434 ms
d
466 ms
d
579 ms
d
473 ms
d
503 ms
c.gif
7 ms
lifeweb.org accessibility score
Contrast
These are opportunities to improve the legibility of your content.
Impact
Issue
Background and foreground colors do not have a sufficient contrast ratio.
lifeweb.org best practices score
Trust and Safety
Impact
Issue
Does not use HTTPS
Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks
General
Impact
Issue
Detected JavaScript libraries
Missing source maps for large first-party JavaScript
lifeweb.org SEO score
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
Document uses legible font sizes
EN
EN
UTF-8
Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Lifeweb.org 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 Lifeweb.org 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.
lifeweb.org
Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Life Web. 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: