2.3 sec in total
33 ms
600 ms
1.7 sec
Visit livingwriter.com now to see the best up-to-date Living Writer content for United States and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about livingwriter.com
More than just words. LivingWriter brings your stories to life with plotting, organization, smart story elements and more. Write easier. Stay synced. Let your words flow.
Visit livingwriter.comWe analyzed Livingwriter.com page load time and found that the first response time was 33 ms and then it took 2.3 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 45% of websites can load faster.
livingwriter.com performance score
name
value
score
weighting
Value3.4 s
39/100
10%
Value7.5 s
4/100
25%
Value5.7 s
52/100
10%
Value5,300 ms
0/100
30%
Value0.305
39/100
15%
Value18.4 s
3/100
10%
33 ms
116 ms
64 ms
31 ms
14 ms
Our browser made a total of 34 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 94% of them (32 requests) were addressed to the original Livingwriter.com, 3% (1 request) were made to Fonts.googleapis.com and 3% (1 request) were made to Fonts.gstatic.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (191 ms) relates to the external source Fonts.gstatic.com.
Page size can be reduced by 140.4 kB (52%)
271.0 kB
130.6 kB
In fact, the total size of Livingwriter.com main page is 271.0 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. Only a small number of websites need less resources to load. HTML takes 202.2 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.
Potential reduce by 125.1 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 125.1 kB or 62% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 15.2 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. Obviously, Living Writer needs image optimization as it can save up to 15.2 kB or 22% of the original volume. The most popular and efficient tools for JPEG and PNG image optimization are Jpegoptim and PNG Crush.
Number of requests can be reduced by 6 (23%)
26
20
The browser has sent 26 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Living Writer. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 4 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 4 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.
livingwriter.com
33 ms
livingwriter.com
116 ms
css2
64 ms
vendor.2db1b6eb.css
31 ms
app.362a1764.css
14 ms
HomePage-vue.7ed9bc14.css
23 ms
vendor.599bbb4d.js
59 ms
HomePage-vue.98bdb358.js
25 ms
chunk-common.1cd62a17.js
22 ms
app.8149d9d0.js
58 ms
banner_mobile.87e44c19.png
38 ms
undefined
20 ms
drag_and_drop_feature.96194400.webp
24 ms
on_screen_sidebar.c7003bea.webp
19 ms
board_mobile_image.2dbf967a.webp
24 ms
Writing_goals_bg.d5fde66f.webp
24 ms
neno_wriomo.226ba3a3.webp
18 ms
manuscript_goals.7688954d.webp
24 ms
session_goals.5bb19486.webp
25 ms
firefox.4f6303dd.svg
19 ms
safari.e80b5b91.svg
26 ms
canva_mobile.675f6548.webp
24 ms
share_it_in_pieces_bg_1.6214705e.webp
30 ms
writer-snapcaster-paige.2fd4ddfa.webp
32 ms
Group_3153.a94ec303.webp
31 ms
writing_software_feature_3_mobile.8fcf5591.webp
31 ms
best_software_for_screenwriting.1a7bdcf7.webp
33 ms
font
191 ms
fa-light-300.f477f634.ttf
92 ms
fa-regular-400.cde87501.ttf
91 ms
fa-solid-900.42ce62dd.ttf
88 ms
fa-sharp-solid-900.b7506c1a.ttf
16 ms
flUhRq6tzZclQEJ-Vdg-IuiaDsNa.4d73cb90.woff
15 ms
fa-brands-400.bb8a10b0.ttf
15 ms
livingwriter.com 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.
Best practices
These items highlight common accessibility best practices.
Impact
Issue
[user-scalable="no"] is used in the <meta name="viewport"> element or the [maximum-scale] attribute is less than 5.
livingwriter.com 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
livingwriter.com 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
Tap targets are not sized appropriately
EN
EN
UTF-8
Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Livingwriter.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 Livingwriter.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.
livingwriter.com
Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Living Writer. 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: