A great shout-out to user mappu04 who identified the roadblock that made us look bad in previous run!
The worst-case results for huge repos still a known open issue, potentially resolved by caching in coming gitea release.
NOW OUR CALL FOR CONTRIBUTION: If you agree with us that accessibility is important, and would like to help resolving the accessibility issues tagged in the report: please have a look and consider a pull request!
However, we do not see noteworthy performance-issues on normally sized repos (both gogs+gitea have still known issues for huge repos and can take up to 8sec or so for example to render linux kernel repo views).
The now enabled gzip-content compression should improve the situation for users with seriously constrained bandwidth, those are overweight in the lighthouse measures, thus the huge jump in the metrics.
@IzzyOnDroid @sir Yeah, such automated tests are always a bit problematic, we agree. As far we have seen the tests are using the Chromium lighthouse measure (part of the developer console), details are described on the forgeperf page.
Despite our initial doubts we have to admit tho that the first problem reported (missing content compression) was actually a real issue we could easily fix, cutting down bandwidth significantly.
@sir @codeberg Well, what I was playing at is: there's accessibility – and there's accessibility. Both are about ability, but different kinds of: physical ability (and here the stats may have a point, admitted) – and, in this context, freedom of accessibilty with privacy kept. I generally avoid pages that don't work without all kind of JS and "other stuff". #AusSicherheitsGründen – and here BB fails miserably. So basically, the table lacks at least one column 😉
@IzzyOnDroid @codeberg well, all of the accessibility criteria which factor into this score are worthwhile goals: everyone should strive for a score of 100 in that column. Then they need to keep working on accessibility in a more self-directed manner, with feedback from the community. So I think having the stat here is worthwhile, even if it's not the full picture.
@laufi @codeberg @sir Fortunately, Lighthouse results aren't anywhere near descriptive as to what is wrong with the site (and it is still possible to get a 100% a11y score and have a completely inaccessible site) - I'd appreciate personal 1to1 guidance for a contribution as I'm not at all familiar with Codeberg's project structure, building process, etc.
@codeberg @laufi @sir Oh, I didn't realize you're actually using Gitea. Gitea doesn't have many open issues on accessibility at the moment and those open seem to be abandoned by the maintainers - they're also marked as proposals and not as bugs/breaking issues - what they actually are. The issues too have persisted over a very long time in the software and I reckon that a rewrite of the entire UI with a11y focus would be much easier than to implement this now.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!