Reasonable people can agree that “trust your eyes” is not a robust nor repeatable nor scalable real-world method of measuring web performance, right?

[fox@front-end.social]

@zachleat reasonable people can agree that “our competition is worse, so it’s ok” isn’t a valid argument for not measuring web performance especially if you never measured competition either.

…right???

[scott@typetura.social]

@zachleat perceived performance is an important metric. There are quantitative measures that can help synthesize that qualitative metric in a repeatable way though.

[cthos@mastodon.cthos.dev]

@zachleat But trusting Zach's eyes is robust and repeatable and ....maybe scalable if we clone you.

[zachleat@fediverse.zachleat.com]

@scottjehl trickery! they’re a witch!

salem web performance trials when

…wait

[zachleat@fediverse.zachleat.com]

@erikKroes my eyes are most reliable when they’re looking at something that confirms my biases

[zachleat@fediverse.zachleat.com]

@jgarber eye witness testimony is always super reliable

[zachleat@fediverse.zachleat.com]

@fox “it could be worse” is aspirational for some folks

[zachleat@fediverse.zachleat.com]

@scott no no no scott, once you introduce formal measurement it might disagree with my biases

[zachleat@fediverse.zachleat.com]

@cthos you’ve made two mistakes here

[matthiasott@mastodon.social]

@zachleat
[voice of Jira from the ClickUp ad]
“Come on! It’s not thaat bad!”