Tools & Wizards About Us
rosemark.net screenshot

Report Summary

  • 33

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    53% of other websites

  • 88

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 68% of websites

  • 92

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    80% of websites

  • 93

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    83% of websites

rosemark.net

Obgyn Clinic in Idaho Falls - Rosemark Women Care Specialists

Page Load Speed

11.5 sec in total

First Response

2.2 sec

Resources Loaded

8.3 sec

Page Rendered

923 ms

rosemark.net screenshot

About Website

Welcome to rosemark.net homepage info - get ready to check Rosemark best content right away, or after learning these important things about rosemark.net

Obgyn experts in Idaho Falls provide a wide range of obgyn healthcare services for women. Full obgyn care for each stage of a woman's life.

Visit rosemark.net

Key Findings

We analyzed Rosemark.net page load time and found that the first response time was 2.2 sec and then it took 9.2 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 85% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

rosemark.net performance score

33

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value8.5 s

0/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value12.4 s

0/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value10.3 s

8/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value270 ms

82/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.267

46/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value15.8 s

6/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

rosemark.net

2242 ms

css2

29 ms

classic-themes.min.css

225 ms

wp-emoji-release.min.js

297 ms

style.css

370 ms

Our browser made a total of 60 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 85% of them (51 requests) were addressed to the original Rosemark.net, 7% (4 requests) were made to Fonts.gstatic.com and 5% (3 requests) were made to Googletagmanager.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (2.2 sec) belongs to the original domain Rosemark.net.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 1.0 MB (47%)

Content Size

2.2 MB

After Optimization

1.1 MB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Rosemark.net main page is 2.2 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. 50% of websites need less resources to load. Images take 931.1 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-76%

Potential reduce by 88.6 kB

  • Original 116.0 kB
  • After minification 113.6 kB
  • After compression 27.5 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. 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 88.6 kB or 76% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-3%

Potential reduce by 23.8 kB

  • Original 931.1 kB
  • After minification 907.2 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. Rosemark images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-69%

Potential reduce by 277.2 kB

  • Original 400.2 kB
  • After minification 399.1 kB
  • After compression 123.1 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 277.2 kB or 69% of the original size.

CSS Optimization

-88%

Potential reduce by 627.8 kB

  • Original 709.4 kB
  • After minification 698.1 kB
  • After compression 81.6 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. Rosemark.net needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 627.8 kB or 88% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 36 (65%)

Requests Now

55

After Optimization

19

  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 55 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Rosemark. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 21 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 11 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

rosemark.net

rosemark.net

2242 ms

css2

css2

29 ms

classic-themes.min.css

classic-themes.min.css

225 ms

wp-emoji-release.min.js

wp-emoji-release.min.js

297 ms

style.css

style.css

370 ms

elementor-icons.min.css

elementor-icons.min.css

297 ms

custom-frontend.min.css

custom-frontend.min.css

590 ms

swiper.min.css

swiper.min.css

447 ms

post-50.css

post-50.css

442 ms

custom-pro-frontend.min.css

custom-pro-frontend.min.css

1307 ms

post-4.css

post-4.css

518 ms

ecs-style.css

ecs-style.css

595 ms

post-1229.css

post-1229.css

670 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

963 ms

jquery-migrate.min.js

jquery-migrate.min.js

744 ms

ecs_ajax_pagination.js

ecs_ajax_pagination.js

811 ms

ecs.js

ecs.js

817 ms

js

js

57 ms

js

js

49 ms

webpack-pro.runtime.min.js

webpack-pro.runtime.min.js

674 ms

webpack.runtime.min.js

webpack.runtime.min.js

749 ms

frontend-modules.min.js

frontend-modules.min.js

1166 ms

wp-polyfill-inert.min.js

wp-polyfill-inert.min.js

824 ms

regenerator-runtime.min.js

regenerator-runtime.min.js

896 ms

wp-polyfill.min.js

wp-polyfill.min.js

1040 ms

hooks.min.js

hooks.min.js

970 ms

i18n.min.js

i18n.min.js

1046 ms

frontend.min.js

frontend.min.js

1258 ms

waypoints.min.js

waypoints.min.js

1258 ms

core.min.js

core.min.js

1385 ms

frontend.min.js

frontend.min.js

1482 ms

elements-handlers.min.js

elements-handlers.min.js

1480 ms

gtm.js

gtm.js

112 ms

background-rm.jpg

background-rm.jpg

342 ms

header-bg.jpg

header-bg.jpg

433 ms

Logo.png

Logo.png

434 ms

hamburger-icon.svg

hamburger-icon.svg

487 ms

search3.svg

search3.svg

578 ms

icon-users.svg

icon-users.svg

580 ms

icon-paybill.svg

icon-paybill.svg

582 ms

forms.svg

forms.svg

659 ms

obgyn-idaho-falls-women-doctor.jpg

obgyn-idaho-falls-women-doctor.jpg

1169 ms

Obstetrics_1-1.svg

Obstetrics_1-1.svg

708 ms

Gynecology_1-1.svg

Gynecology_1-1.svg

800 ms

Aesthetics_1-1.svg

Aesthetics_1-1.svg

802 ms

Specialties_1-1.svg

Specialties_1-1.svg

803 ms

Research-1.svg

Research-1.svg

881 ms

Newly-pregnant-banner.webp

Newly-pregnant-banner.webp

1076 ms

obgyn-Idaho-Falls-30-Year-Anniversary-500x500.png

obgyn-Idaho-Falls-30-Year-Anniversary-500x500.png

1241 ms

facial-fillers-idaho-falls-30-special-extended.jpg

facial-fillers-idaho-falls-30-special-extended.jpg

1462 ms

laser-hair-removal-idaho-falls-summer-deals-24.jpg

laser-hair-removal-idaho-falls-summer-deals-24.jpg

1318 ms

facebook.svg

facebook.svg

1102 ms

icon-instagram.svg

icon-instagram.svg

1298 ms

icon-google.svg

icon-google.svg

1324 ms

otis-redding.png

otis-redding.png

138 ms

quotemark.svg

quotemark.svg

1349 ms

JTUHjIg1_i6t8kCHKm4532VJOt5-QNFgpCtr6Ew-.ttf

JTUHjIg1_i6t8kCHKm4532VJOt5-QNFgpCtr6Ew-.ttf

94 ms

JTUHjIg1_i6t8kCHKm4532VJOt5-QNFgpCuM70w-.ttf

JTUHjIg1_i6t8kCHKm4532VJOt5-QNFgpCuM70w-.ttf

114 ms

JTUFjIg1_i6t8kCHKm459Wx7xQYXK0vOoz6jq6R9aX8.ttf

JTUFjIg1_i6t8kCHKm459Wx7xQYXK0vOoz6jq6R9aX8.ttf

61 ms

JTUFjIg1_i6t8kCHKm459Wx7xQYXK0vOoz6jq0N6aX8.ttf

JTUFjIg1_i6t8kCHKm459Wx7xQYXK0vOoz6jq0N6aX8.ttf

74 ms

Accessibility Review

rosemark.net accessibility score

88

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

Image elements do not have [alt] attributes

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

List items (<li>) are not contained within <ul> or <ol> parent elements.

Best Practices

rosemark.net best practices score

92

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

Low

Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

SEO Factors

rosemark.net SEO score

93

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

    EN

  • Encoding

    UTF-8

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

rosemark.net

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