Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A Comparison of Load-time Performance Between Client- and Server-based Responsive Web Design
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
2021 (English)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Before Responsive Web Design (RWD) it was common to create fixed-width websites. In recent years the standard way of creating responsive websites is by some of the fundamental aspects of RWD on the client-side. But can it be worth using RWD with components sent from a server by detecting the device and send component-specific material as to lessen some of the resources of the page?

Tests have been made for this purpose with Google Lighthouse’s performance audits in mobile and desktop mode between four almost identical websites. These tests measures which website will receive better load-time performance results viewed from an emulated smartphone with a 3G/4G connection (mobile) and an emulated desktop PC with a 10 Mbps of connection (desktop). Each website consists of two pages, one with lesser resources (< 1 MB, known as index.html), the other with larger resources (24.3 MB, known as gallery.html). All four websites are responsive and built after the main pillars of RWD. Two websites does not have any optimization while two websites have added image optimization. One of the two websites in each category, image-optimized and unoptimized, is a server-based component website. This means, it will use asynchronous calls to a server to get specific components for the specific viewport. 

In the tests performed, between the unoptimized websites, one client-based (CRWDu), the other server-based (SRWDu), on index.html, the CRWDu website scored best in mobile and got a slightly better result in desktop mode. On gallery.html, the SRWDu website received the best results in both modes, mobile and desktop. Between the image-optimized websites, one client-based (CRWDo), the other server-based (SRWDo), the CRWDo website on index.html, had a slightly better result in mobile and a worse result in desktop mode. On gallery.html, the SRWDo website had a much better result in both mobile and desktop mode.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2021. , p. 66
Keywords [en]
responsive web design, rwd, ress, rwd server-side, lighthouse performance audits
National Category
Software Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-22157OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-22157DiVA, id: diva2:1597357
Subject / course
PA1445 Kandidatkurs i Programvaruteknik
Educational program
PAGWE Web Programming
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2021-09-27 Created: 2021-09-26 Last updated: 2021-09-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

A Comparison of Load-time Performance Between Client and Server-based Responsive Web Design(973 kB)282 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 973 kBChecksum SHA-512
e4eefe435898087a89ba475372f6855bfa58c66792de2fa6976dff743bd02d3be78c02bb35a2a6bd1ff08c0b32cd2630867551848af9c802d187e953e327fde8
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
Software Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 283 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 1070 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf