Tools & Wizards About Us
rowetechnical.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 20

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    37% of other websites

  • 86

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 62% of websites

  • 92

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    81% of websites

  • 93

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    84% of websites

rowetechnical.com

Tissue Phantom | Model Eye | Optomechanical Consultant | Rowe Technical Design

Page Load Speed

5 sec in total

First Response

986 ms

Resources Loaded

3.5 sec

Page Rendered

491 ms

rowetechnical.com screenshot

About Website

Click here to check amazing Rowe Technical content. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about rowetechnical.com

Rowe Technical Design is an optomechanical consultant and designer offering expertise in tissue phantoms, model eyes, and more worldwide.

Visit rowetechnical.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Rowetechnical.com page load time and found that the first response time was 986 ms and then it took 4 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 65% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

rowetechnical.com performance score

20

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value7.8 s

0/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value15.8 s

0/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value11.8 s

4/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value890 ms

32/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.195

63/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value17.9 s

3/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

rowetechnical.com

986 ms

style.min.css

163 ms

autoptimize_single_0e4a098f3f6e3faede64db8b9da80ba2.css

63 ms

autoptimize_single_0546e1ffbf7dca6915124f9228e73abe.css

88 ms

dashicons.min.css

143 ms

Our browser made a total of 71 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 86% of them (61 requests) were addressed to the original Rowetechnical.com, 6% (4 requests) were made to Fonts.gstatic.com and 3% (2 requests) were made to Google.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (986 ms) belongs to the original domain Rowetechnical.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 607.9 kB (39%)

Content Size

1.6 MB

After Optimization

964.4 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Rowetechnical.com main page is 1.6 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. 65% of websites need less resources to load. CSS take 511.3 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-78%

Potential reduce by 36.1 kB

  • Original 46.3 kB
  • After minification 46.0 kB
  • After compression 10.2 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 36.1 kB or 78% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-1%

Potential reduce by 6.0 kB

  • Original 509.3 kB
  • After minification 503.3 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. Rowe Technical images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-32%

Potential reduce by 161.7 kB

  • Original 505.4 kB
  • After minification 499.5 kB
  • After compression 343.7 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 161.7 kB or 32% of the original size.

CSS Optimization

-79%

Potential reduce by 404.1 kB

  • Original 511.3 kB
  • After minification 497.2 kB
  • After compression 107.2 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. Rowetechnical.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 404.1 kB or 79% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 29 (47%)

Requests Now

62

After Optimization

33

  • AJAX
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 62 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Rowe Technical. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 18 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 13 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

rowetechnical.com

rowetechnical.com

986 ms

style.min.css

style.min.css

163 ms

autoptimize_single_0e4a098f3f6e3faede64db8b9da80ba2.css

autoptimize_single_0e4a098f3f6e3faede64db8b9da80ba2.css

63 ms

autoptimize_single_0546e1ffbf7dca6915124f9228e73abe.css

autoptimize_single_0546e1ffbf7dca6915124f9228e73abe.css

88 ms

dashicons.min.css

dashicons.min.css

143 ms

autoptimize_single_521b3d9e8924b080cd6dd3b5e8b01fee.css

autoptimize_single_521b3d9e8924b080cd6dd3b5e8b01fee.css

88 ms

autoptimize_single_6d7a8e925eb05c8a5f14aa6ffec6eebc.css

autoptimize_single_6d7a8e925eb05c8a5f14aa6ffec6eebc.css

114 ms

css

css

40 ms

all.min.css

all.min.css

146 ms

animate.min.css

animate.min.css

166 ms

autoptimize_single_6e4862d0ca9243af1864911c88ebe0ac.css

autoptimize_single_6e4862d0ca9243af1864911c88ebe0ac.css

144 ms

autoptimize_single_13b1b6672b8cfb0d9ae7f899f1c42875.css

autoptimize_single_13b1b6672b8cfb0d9ae7f899f1c42875.css

144 ms

autoptimize_single_f9faba678c4d6dcfdde69e5b11b37a2e.css

autoptimize_single_f9faba678c4d6dcfdde69e5b11b37a2e.css

163 ms

style.css

style.css

192 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

203 ms

jquery-migrate.min.js

jquery-migrate.min.js

168 ms

js

js

77 ms

wow.min.js

wow.min.js

148 ms

slick.min.js

slick.min.js

164 ms

scripts.js

scripts.js

166 ms

bootstrap.min.js

bootstrap.min.js

208 ms

index.js

index.js

209 ms

index.js

index.js

263 ms

wp-video-popup.js

wp-video-popup.js

264 ms

api.js

api.js

38 ms

wp-polyfill-inert.min.js

wp-polyfill-inert.min.js

264 ms

regenerator-runtime.min.js

regenerator-runtime.min.js

264 ms

wp-polyfill.min.js

wp-polyfill.min.js

265 ms

index.js

index.js

265 ms

akismet-frontend.js

akismet-frontend.js

266 ms

logo-white.png

logo-white.png

71 ms

nav-acoct-model-eye.jpg

nav-acoct-model-eye.jpg

69 ms

nav-cornea-model-eye.jpg

nav-cornea-model-eye.jpg

69 ms

nav-oct-model-eye.jpg

nav-oct-model-eye.jpg

68 ms

nav-whole-model-eye.jpg

nav-whole-model-eye.jpg

69 ms

nav-wide-field-model-eye.jpg

nav-wide-field-model-eye.jpg

69 ms

nav-custom-eyze.jpg

nav-custom-eyze.jpg

72 ms

1.jpg

1.jpg

72 ms

2.jpg

2.jpg

70 ms

3.jpg

3.jpg

72 ms

4.jpg

4.jpg

160 ms

5.jpg

5.jpg

162 ms

6.jpg

6.jpg

160 ms

7.jpg

7.jpg

162 ms

8.jpg

8.jpg

163 ms

9.jpg

9.jpg

163 ms

10.jpg

10.jpg

163 ms

11.jpg

11.jpg

163 ms

12.jpg

12.jpg

164 ms

13.jpg

13.jpg

164 ms

14.jpg

14.jpg

165 ms

15.jpg

15.jpg

164 ms

16.jpg

16.jpg

165 ms

17.jpg

17.jpg

165 ms

18.jpeg

18.jpeg

166 ms

1.jpg

1.jpg

165 ms

2.jpg

2.jpg

165 ms

3.jpg

3.jpg

164 ms

4.jpg

4.jpg

111 ms

5.jpg

5.jpg

139 ms

S6uyw4BMUTPHjx4wWw.ttf

S6uyw4BMUTPHjx4wWw.ttf

64 ms

S6u9w4BMUTPHh7USSwiPHA.ttf

S6u9w4BMUTPHh7USSwiPHA.ttf

69 ms

S6u8w4BMUTPHh30AXC-v.ttf

S6u8w4BMUTPHh30AXC-v.ttf

104 ms

S6u9w4BMUTPHh6UVSwiPHA.ttf

S6u9w4BMUTPHh6UVSwiPHA.ttf

134 ms

fa-solid-900.woff

fa-solid-900.woff

103 ms

fa-regular-400.woff

fa-regular-400.woff

231 ms

fa-light-300.woff

fa-light-300.woff

231 ms

fa-brands-400.woff

fa-brands-400.woff

98 ms

embed

embed

205 ms

recaptcha__en.js

recaptcha__en.js

97 ms

js

js

57 ms

Accessibility Review

rowetechnical.com accessibility score

86

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

ARIA input fields do not have accessible names

High

ARIA toggle fields do not have accessible names

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

<frame> or <iframe> elements do not have a title

High

Links do not have a discernible name

Navigation

These are opportunities to improve keyboard navigation in your application.

Impact

Issue

High

Heading elements are not in a sequentially-descending order

Best practices

These items highlight common accessibility best practices.

Impact

Issue

High

[user-scalable="no"] is used in the <meta name="viewport"> element or the [maximum-scale] attribute is less than 5.

Best Practices

rowetechnical.com 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

rowetechnical.com 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

Links do not have descriptive text

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 Rowetechnical.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 Rowetechnical.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.

Social Sharing Optimization

rowetechnical.com

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