Tools & Wizards About Us
richarddingwall.name screenshot

Report Summary

  • 39

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    58% of other websites

  • 81

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 51% of websites

  • 83

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    55% of websites

  • 86

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    60% of websites

richarddingwall.name

Richard Dingwall's Blog | Popular Software Development Methodologies

Page Load Speed

3.1 sec in total

First Response

205 ms

Resources Loaded

2.6 sec

Page Rendered

246 ms

richarddingwall.name screenshot

About Website

Visit richarddingwall.name now to see the best up-to-date Richard Dingwall content for United States and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about richarddingwall.name

Welcome to Richard Dingwall's Blog where yo can have fun and also learn great stuff about software development methodologies.

Visit richarddingwall.name

Key Findings

We analyzed Richarddingwall.name page load time and found that the first response time was 205 ms and then it took 2.9 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 55% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

richarddingwall.name performance score

39

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value5.1 s

9/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value6.3 s

10/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value12.9 s

2/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value220 ms

87/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.272

45/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value10.8 s

22/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

richarddingwall.name

205 ms

rdingwall.com

1772 ms

wp-emoji-release.min.js

69 ms

wp-filebase.css

129 ms

font-awesome.min.css

156 ms

Our browser made a total of 27 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 4% of them (1 request) were addressed to the original Richarddingwall.name, 74% (20 requests) were made to Rdingwall.com and 7% (2 requests) were made to Google-analytics.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (1.8 sec) relates to the external source Rdingwall.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 357.4 kB (68%)

Content Size

524.9 kB

After Optimization

167.5 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Richarddingwall.name main page is 524.9 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. 35% of websites need less resources to load. Javascripts take 336.7 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-72%

Potential reduce by 17.3 kB

  • Original 23.9 kB
  • After minification 22.0 kB
  • After compression 6.7 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 17.3 kB or 72% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-0%

Potential reduce by 0 B

  • Original 29.4 kB
  • After minification 29.4 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. Richard Dingwall images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-68%

Potential reduce by 230.0 kB

  • Original 336.7 kB
  • After minification 301.2 kB
  • After compression 106.7 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 230.0 kB or 68% of the original size.

CSS Optimization

-82%

Potential reduce by 110.1 kB

  • Original 134.8 kB
  • After minification 123.9 kB
  • After compression 24.8 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. Richarddingwall.name needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 110.1 kB or 82% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 19 (76%)

Requests Now

25

After Optimization

6

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 25 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Richard Dingwall. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 15 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 6 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

richarddingwall.name

richarddingwall.name

205 ms

rdingwall.com

rdingwall.com

1772 ms

wp-emoji-release.min.js

wp-emoji-release.min.js

69 ms

wp-filebase.css

wp-filebase.css

129 ms

font-awesome.min.css

font-awesome.min.css

156 ms

mediaelementplayer.min.css

mediaelementplayer.min.css

150 ms

wp-mediaelement.css

wp-mediaelement.css

147 ms

style.css

style.css

144 ms

jetpack.css

jetpack.css

137 ms

jquery.js

jquery.js

368 ms

jquery-migrate.min.js

jquery-migrate.min.js

275 ms

spin.js

spin.js

215 ms

jquery.spin.js

jquery.spin.js

229 ms

external-tracking.min.js

external-tracking.min.js

228 ms

infinity.js

infinity.js

277 ms

jquery.cycle.js

jquery.cycle.js

354 ms

slideshow-shortcode.js

slideshow-shortcode.js

308 ms

devicepx-jetpack.js

devicepx-jetpack.js

57 ms

mediaelement-and-player.min.js

mediaelement-and-player.min.js

363 ms

wp-mediaelement.js

wp-mediaelement.js

354 ms

wp-embed.min.js

wp-embed.min.js

402 ms

e-201609.js

e-201609.js

4 ms

ga.js

ga.js

105 ms

128 ms

fontawesome-webfont.woff

fontawesome-webfont.woff

262 ms

g.gif

g.gif

20 ms

__utm.gif

__utm.gif

11 ms

Accessibility Review

richarddingwall.name accessibility score

81

Accessibility Issues

ARIA

These are opportunities to improve the usage of ARIA in your application which may enhance the experience for users of assistive technology, like a screen reader.

Impact

Issue

High

[role] values are not valid

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.

Navigation

These are opportunities to improve keyboard navigation in your application.

Impact

Issue

High

Heading elements are not in a sequentially-descending order

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

richarddingwall.name 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

User Experience

Impact

Issue

High

Serves images with low resolution

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

SEO Factors

richarddingwall.name SEO score

86

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

Links do not have descriptive text

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

    EN

  • Encoding

    UTF-8

Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Richarddingwall.name 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 Richarddingwall.name 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

richarddingwall.name

Open Graph data is detected on the main page of Richard Dingwall. This is the best way to make the web page social media friendly. Here is how it looks like on Facebook: