When defining a top level metric, there are several desirable properties which are frequently in tension. This document attempts to roughly outline the desirable properties we should keep in mind when defining a metric. Also see the document on improving the actionability of a top level metric via diagnostic metrics.
Top level metrics are how we understand our product’s high level behavior, and if they don’t correlate with user experience, our understanding is misaligned with the real world. However, measuring representativeness is costly. In the long term, we can use ablation studies (in the browser or in partnership with representative sites), or user studies to confirm representativeness. In the short term, we use our intuition in defining the metric, and carefully measure the metric implementation’s accuracy.
These metrics would ideally also correlate strongly with business value, making it easy to motivate site owners to optimizing these metrics.
When we first come up with a metric, we have a concept in mind of what the metric is trying to measure. The accuracy of a metric implementation is how closely the metric implementation aligns to our conceptual model of what we’re trying to measure.
For example, First Contentful Paint was created to measure the first time we paint something the user might actually care about. Our current implementation looks at when the browser first painted any text, image, non-white canvas or SVG. The accuracy of this metric is determined by how often the first thing painted which the user cares about is text, image, canvas or SVG.
To evaluate how accurate a metric is, there’s no substitute for manual evaluation. Ideally, this evaluation phase would be performed by multiple people, with little knowledge of the metric in question.
To initially evaluate the accuracy of a point in time metric:
To initially evaluate accuracy of a quality of experience metric, we rely heavily on human intuition:
A metric is stable if the result doesn’t vary much between successive runs on similar input. This can be quantitatively evaluated, ideally using Chrome Trace Processor and cluster telemetry on the top 10k sites. Eventually we hope to have a concrete threshold for a specific spread metric here, but for now, we gather the stability data, and analyze it by hand.
Different domains have different amounts of inherent instability - for example, when measuring page load performance using a real network, the network injects significant variability. We can’t avoid this, but we can try to implement metrics which minimize instability, and don’t exaggerate the instability inherent in the system.
A metric is interpretable if the numbers it produces are easy to understand, especially for individuals without strong domain knowledge. For example, point-in-time metrics tend to be easy to explain, even if their implementations are complicated (see “Simplicity”). For example, it’s easy to communicate what First Meaningful Paint is, even if how we compute it is very complicated. Conversely, something like SpeedIndex is somewhat difficult to explain and hard to reason about - it’s the average time at which things were displayed on the page.
Metrics which are easy to interpret are often easier to evaluate. For example, First Meaningful Paint can be evaluated by comparing hand picked first meaningful paint times to the results of a given approach for computing first meaningful paint. SpeedIndex is more complicated to evaluate - we’d need to use the approach given above for quality of experience metrics.
A metric is simple if the way its computed is easy to understand. There’s a strong correlation between being simple and being interpretable, but there are counter examples, such as FMP being interpretable, but not simple.
A simple metric is less likely to have been overfit during the metric development / evaluation phase, and has other obvious advantages (easier to maintain, often faster to execute, less likely to contain bugs).
One crude way of quantifying simplicity is to measure the number of tunable parameters. For example, we can look at two ways of aggregating Frame Throughput. We could look at the average Frame Throughput defined over all animations during the pageview. Alternatively, we could look for the 300ms window with the worst average Frame Throughput. The second approach has one additional parameter, and is thus strictly more complex.
A good metric is elastic, that is, a small change in the input (the page) results in a small change in the output.
In a continuous integration environment, you want to know whether or not a given code change resulted in metric improvements or regressions. Non-elastic metrics often obscure changes, making it hard to justify small but meaningful improvements, or allowing small but meaningful regressions to slip by. Elastic metrics also generally have lower variability.
This is frequently at odds with the interpretability requirement. For example, First Meaningful Paint is easier to interpret than SpeedIndex, but is non-elastic.
If your metric involves thresholds (such as the 50ms task length threshold in TTI), or heuristics (looking at the largest jump in the number of layout objects in FMP), it’s likely to be non-elastic.
We’d like to have metrics which we can compute in realtime. For example, if we’re measuring First Meaningful Paint, we’d like to know when First Meaningful Paint occurred at the time it occurred. This isn’t always attainable, but when possible, it avoids some classes of survivorship bias, which makes metrics easier to analyze.
Ideally there would only be one top-level metric for each aspect of user experience we aim to represent. If multiple top-level metrics represent the same thing, it adds unnecessary complexity. Consumers of the metric can get confused about which metric to use and what each measures. We can overweight one user experience which has more metrics while underweighting another which has fewer metrics.
Sometimes it is necessary to have multiple metrics representing a single user experience when it's not possible to measure that user experience the same way in the lab and in the wild.
Some metrics are much more realistic for in the wild use cases than lab. For example, it's difficult to accurately measure response to user input in the lab, since the timing of simulated lab inputs might not be realistic. Similarly, some metrics are more accurately measured in the lab. For example, a metric that requires no interaction on the page for a long period of time is more consistently measured in the lab than in the wild.
We'd like to have metrics that correlate well in the wild and in the lab, so that the metrics accurately represent user experiences in the wild, and are easy to debug locally.