-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Layout Instability Shifted Element Surfacing #485
Comments
Hi! On "The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done" can you be more specific? Will this be going to the web performance working group? |
On the explainer, can you please take a look at our explainer explainer? We'd really like to see more info here – and please remember this explainer is not intended to just be for the purposes of the TAG review. It's about writing some documentation about how the technology works that will keep providing value down the line as the spec matures... |
Thanks for the comments and apologies for the delayed update. Shifted element surfacing has now been added to the master explainer for the Layout Instability API. The "Source Attribution" section describes the new attribute. I think this makes more sense than having a separate explainer, since this is an extension to an existing API rather than a brand new API. The updates to the spec have also been committed; the sources attribute and the LayoutShiftAttribution interface are now included in the Layout Instability API specification in WICG. Standardization of this work is intended to be done in the CSS web performance working group. |
So we looked at this briefly in our Breakout B today. A few thoughts:
|
Another question based on your Privacy Section, can you elaborate why does "statistical fingerprinting" apply to resource loading but not Layout Instability? |
On memory leaks: this actually came up on the PR and we made some changes as a result: On privacy: we do not claim that fingerprinting applies to resource loading but not layout instability. On the contrary, the intent is to disclose that layout instability is affected by resource loading, and therefore shares the same theoretical fingerprinting opportunities. |
From #485 (comment):
Did you mean the CSS Working Group, the Web Performance Working Group, or some combination of them? |
@atanassov and I just took a look at this again in a breakout at our virtual face-to-face. I think we're happy closing this; what we've seen seems reasonable. We encourage you to continue to get feedback from the appropriate working groups (I suspect Web Performance is probably the right venue but that it's useful to get a bit of feedback from CSS), and to get data on whether this is a useful approach for the performance that affects users and for what developers want to measure. |
Thanks - I think I meant the Web Performance working group, which publishes specs for APIs like Performance Timeline, Paint Timing, etc. |
Hello TAG!
I'm requesting a TAG review of Layout Instability Shifted Element Surfacing.
Today it is difficult for web developers to understand the cause of a high CLS score using the Layout Instability API, because nothing in the score or the PerformanceEntry connects back to the specific DOM elements that were affected by the layout shift.
CLS Shifted Element Surfacing (SES) is an effort to surface a subset of the shifted DOM elements in the LayoutShift interface. This will improve the "actionability" of CLS for developers.
Further details:
You should also know that...
This feature adds a new attribute ("sources") to an interface defined in an existing specification (Layout Instability). The PR to amend the spec with this feature is not yet landed but we are proactively initiating TAG review to optimize the time available to review. There is some discussion on the PR review thread which may alter some aspects of the API.
We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please delete all but the desired option):
💬 leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify [github usernames]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: