| It might have been PageSpeed that I used. I can't remember for sure. It was a long time ago, back when Google were first pushing their AMP stuff. If it was that tool I used, maybe they've improved it since then, or maybe it works better on more complex sites. As I said, my site was very lean and dependency-free and the suggestions offered [at the time] would have made it more bloated, slower and relying on external dependencies. EDIT: Dredging my memory, I think one of the 'problems' identified was the recommendation you've mentioned above to use more modern image formats. Ironic because I'd only recently shaved quite a bit off the size of the imagery on the site by redesigning several of them [including the main banner] in svg format. I think Google also recommended I use image srcset [0] to optimise the images the site displayed, dependent on the end-user's screen size. That would have not only made the site bigger and arguably slightly slower but would also have required production of lots of extra image assets, whereas the svg approach I'd used actually made the site smaller and, being vector-based, svg can be served at any size required. As I say, they may have improved the tool since then. But I got the impression at the time it was pretty crude. Seemed it just checked whether the site employed X and, if not, recommend that it should, regardless of the fact the site might actually implement Y instead, which was even more efficient. [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLImageEl... |