2 sec in total
207 ms
1.5 sec
386 ms
Visit screen.design now to see the best up-to-date Screen content and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about screen.design
Hallo, ich bin Oliver Schade. Ich bin Usability Berater, UI Designer und Entrepreneur.
Visit screen.designWe analyzed Screen.design page load time and found that the first response time was 207 ms and then it took 1.8 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 35% of websites can load faster.
screen.design performance score
name
value
score
weighting
Value3.3 s
40/100
10%
Value9.9 s
0/100
25%
Value8.3 s
19/100
10%
Value1,890 ms
9/100
30%
Value0.206
60/100
15%
Value12.4 s
15/100
10%
207 ms
260 ms
169 ms
167 ms
300 ms
Our browser made a total of 18 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that all of those requests were addressed to Screen.design and no external sources were called. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (606 ms) belongs to the original domain Screen.design.
Page size can be reduced by 1.0 MB (68%)
1.5 MB
489.4 kB
In fact, the total size of Screen.design main page is 1.5 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. 30% of websites need less resources to load. Javascripts take 1.0 MB which makes up the majority of the site volume.
Potential reduce by 6.4 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 2.8 kB, which is 34% 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 6.4 kB or 79% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 31.7 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, Screen needs image optimization as it can save up to 31.7 kB or 18% of the original volume. The most popular and efficient tools for JPEG and PNG image optimization are Jpegoptim and PNG Crush.
Potential reduce by 725.9 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 725.9 kB or 71% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 272.1 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. Screen.design needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 272.1 kB or 85% of the original size.
Number of requests can be reduced by 6 (50%)
12
6
The browser has sent 12 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Screen. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 7 to 1 for JavaScripts and as a result speed up the page load time.
login
207 ms
all-vendors.css
260 ms
style.css
169 ms
responsive.css
167 ms
jquery.js
300 ms
jquery.select2.js
289 ms
all-vendors.js
470 ms
ckeditor.js
606 ms
jquery.noty.packaged.min.js
254 ms
custom.js
338 ms
custom.general.js
357 ms
login-background.jpg
436 ms
logo.png
105 ms
opensans-webfont.woff
174 ms
opensans-light-webfont.woff
109 ms
opensans-bold-webfont.woff
173 ms
fontawesome-webfont.woff
335 ms
fontawesome-webfont.woff
334 ms
screen.design 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.
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
No form fields have multiple labels
Navigation
These are opportunities to improve keyboard navigation in your application.
Impact
Issue
Heading elements are not in a sequentially-descending order
screen.design best practices score
Trust and Safety
Impact
Issue
Does not use HTTPS
Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks
User Experience
Impact
Issue
Displays images with incorrect aspect ratio
General
Impact
Issue
Detected JavaScript libraries
Browser errors were logged to the console
Missing source maps for large first-party JavaScript
screen.design 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
N/A
EN
UTF-8
Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Screen.design can be misinterpreted by Google and other search engines. Unfortunately we cannot identify language used on the page (probably there is a mix of languages, too little text or something else), while the claimed language is English. Our system also found out that Screen.design 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.
screen.design
Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Screen. 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: