Why videos is not appearing on Median page weight by content type figure?

Is it because videos are mainly tierce assets? How to compare videos weight regarding other content type in that case?

Where is it you’re asking about? I can see video on the graph here:

Thank you @tunetheweb. I’ve already spotted this graph but it doesn’t quite answer my questioning as it tells us that the median video weight is 3.5Mo, which is more than the whole weight of median page. I’m looking for a way to compare video’s contribution to median page weight regarding other assets (HTML, css, js, images, others…).

PS : sorry for my pour English writing.

Ah OK. Yes you are correct it doesn’t show the breakdown in that way.

It’s more there to answer “what’s the average size of videos when it’s used on page” rather than “how much do videos make up the median size of web pages”

We delve into the data more in our Web Almanac publication and you can get an answer to your question here:

Video doesn’t show on this graph, but if you click the Three dots in the top right you can see the data behind that:

Three dots menu

and viewing that you see this:

percentile client total_kbytes html_kbytes js_kbytes css_kbytes img_kbytes other_kbytes html_doc_kbytes font_kbytes
10 desktop 529 6 95 9 82 0 0 0
25 desktop 1,141 13 236 32 331 0 6 41
50 desktop 2,314 31 509 72 1,026 0 16 116
75 desktop 4,643 69 941 145 2,694 0 31 225
90 desktop 9,064 139 1,504 262 6,066 0 59 401
100 desktop 678,439 67,738 106,210 62,631 671,672 71,775 55,298 68,285
10 mobile 445 6 87 6 64 0 0 0
25 mobile 990 13 209 28 260 0 5 29
50 mobile 2,019 30 461 68 881 0 15 97
75 mobile 4,042 67 857 139 2,402 0 30 191
90 mobile 8,082 135 1,367 256 5,474 0 60 338
100 mobile 390,511 122,001 121,591 78,543 385,425 122,724 46,597 110,404

So the “other bytes” is zero for all but the 100th percentile.

This makes sense to me as video is not that common, and I’d be VERY surprised if half of the websites we check have a video on them. Hence the median will be 0.

This also shows why showing the graph in the way you’d like would not make for a very interesting graph!

1 Like