Posts Tagged ‘optimisation’

We’re taking the lean startup approach with Leeds Anxiety Clinic and trying not to build anything unless we absolutely need it. As a result, when I originally built our website is was functional but not particularly fast.

Now that we’re up and running and have clients coming through the door, I’ve been back over the site to make it faster and better. Below, I’ve detailed what I’ve done. Here’s a before and after using the Lighthouse audit tool:

Turn cache headers on

There were no cache headers on our images, CSS or JavaScript. Part of this was that I was still making changes to the JavaScript and didn’t have any cache-busting functionality in the site yet. Now that I do, I could safely let the browser cache everything for a month.

Replacing jQuery

jQuery is a library whose time has been and gone. But it does make it super easy to throw in some functionality. Now that I have a proper JavaScript setup, however, and as jQuery was mostly just animating things, I replaced it with native CSS animations and vanilla JS.

Compressing the JavaScript

As there was no JavaScript preprocessing going on, it was not compressed. Ironically, this hasn’t made it any smaller because I’ve now got the Webpack bootstrapping in the file. However, it does mean I can easily load in additional modules, which I discuss below, to help with other areas of the site.

Gzip compression

This is a super-easy win because all you have to do is put it in your Apache config and the server does all of the rest.

Async loading of web fonts

We had a total of three blocking font calls in the header of the page. All of this has now gone. I’m using webfontloader to load in the two variations of Lato that we are using.

Fontawesome is used for icons and is loaded in using a classic link tag, however, I’ve moved this link tag to the bottom of the page so that the initial content can be loaded first. On slow connections, this means the icons are missing for a fraction of a second when you load the page but I think it is worth it.

If I was looking to optimise further like I do with Worfolk Anxiety, I would select the individual icons I want, base64 encode them and put them directly in the CSS. But that seems overkill here for the moment.

Finally, I’ve set the font-display CSS property to fallback so that if the fonts are slow in loading, the text will be rendered away using a system font.

Webp images

Oh my god, webp images are so good. They’re like half the size of the already optimised JPEGs and PNGs that they are replacing.

Unfortunately, few browsers support them yet. It’s basically just Chrome (on desktop and Android). So, I’m using the picture tag with a fallback, as everyone does. I can’t wait until webp gets wider adoption.

Unfortunately, there is no way to do a safe fallback in CSS so my background images remain old JPEGs for everyone.

When creating Facebook ads, you can choose a variety of campaign objectives: website traffic, clicks, conversions, purchases, leads, page likes, the list goes on.

For most campaigns, you will be choosing between clicks and conversions. Some people have suggested it doesn’t make much difference. But my testing disagrees. We’ve seen a large amount of difference between who clicks and who converts.

The audiences are different

Over at Restaurant Psychology we have a survival checklist to help restaurants owners create a great experience. It is a pared down version of my book Why Restaurants Fail – And What To Do About It. To promote it, I launched a Facebook ad.

It’s not a fancy design. I tried fancy designs, and this converts better.

To start with, I wanted to make sure everything was working and that people responded to the advert. So I set up a campaign with the objective of clicks. The audience responded well, and we achieved around a 3% click-thru rate, which is pretty kick-ass for Facebook.

What is perhaps more interesting though, is that it was predominantly women who were clicking on the ad.

What happens when we changed the objective?

Once this was done, I set up a new campaign. This one had the objective of getting conversions. That means it was optimised for people to sign-up to get the checklist, rather than just click on the ad. Facebook went to work and found these people.

And they were different.

Despite the fact that women were more likely to click on the advert, they almost never signed up to get the checklist. They made up 62% of the clicks, but only 4% of the conversions.

What is going on here?

Facebook is very good at predicting what a user will do. Scarily good.

And it knows that, for example, women are more likely to click on my advert, while men are far more likely to sign-up when they do click on it. Therefore, it delivers the advert to a very different audience based on what campaign objective I choose.

What objective should you choose for your campaign?

What objective you pick will depend on what you want to happen. If you want clicks, choose clicks. If you want conversions, choose conversions. But make sure you know what you want before you launch the campaign because it does matter.