Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by inferiorhuman 652 days ago 

  Processing the font itself also is at least 500ms to a second
  depending on the device type.
I think that's off by quite a lot.

On my MacBook Pro I can dump one of the Helvetica Neue faces in one second with ttx (fonttools). If a python script can parse a font, create an XML representation, and write a pretty printed version of that to disk in a second then yea 500 ms seems really slow.

Hell, typst (rust) can render a PDF with two subsetted fonts (Apple Color Emoji + Cambria Math) in about 750 ms. I certainly hope Harfbuzz is at least that fast.
1 comments
system2 652 days ago
Google's crawl emulation is based on this:

Emulated Moto G Power with Lighthouse 12.2.0 - Slow 4G throttling.

With slow download and rendering it is probably more than 500ms in my opinion. Either way, I won't leave money on the table and sacrifice 1% better-looking fonts, even if it is for 10ms. Mobile load time is the #1 SEO signal these days and will stay #1 for a long time.

link
inferiorhuman 652 days ago
Right, but your claim was that just processing the font would take 500 ms. No idea what a Moto G Power is or how fast it is, but 500 ms for processing still seems like a pessimistic estimate.

I've no idea what sort of overhead Google adds to font downloads either, but assuming WOFF2 format the font itself should be well under 100k. Granted WOFF2 is fairly new (2018), but it's fairly well supported these days. I'd expect Google Fonts to support it as WOFF2 was Google's attempt at wringing out a bit more optimization out SFNT fonts.

link
system2 651 days ago
Alright, sorry to make it sound like that. Either way, it adds overhead (local or Google) but CDN-loaded ones cause more issues. Google Fonts is the web's standard for non-system fonts and indeed it adds CSS, JS, additional requests, and the font itself, including wait times due to download and load. SEO is a competitive environment, even a single request, and ms counts. Small blogs might not care but if your website gets traffic, those little millisecond differences rank your posts differently.

Our pages are around 80kb in total (yes you are reading correctly, not 800kb but 80kb including images of the blog posts, including the WebP images, javascript, CSS, and the HTML file itself. Imagine doubling or quadrupling it just for a font. That would be insanity. 100kb font size is absurd if you want your mobile speed (#1 SEO factor today) to be better.

Core Web Vitals scores us 100% for everything. This drops to 80%~ when we use external fonts. We tried 100s of different metrics. The font is a major factor (again, doesn't matter local or Google). Added overhead is going to sink your ranks like a rock.

For anyone reading this, do not use Google fonts if you want your SEO to be better.

link