Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Through the Lens of Google CrUX: Dissecting Web Browsing Experience Across Devices and Countries (2308.06409v2)

Published 11 Aug 2023 in cs.NI and cs.PF

Abstract: User quality of experience in the context of Web browsing is being researched widely, with plenty of developments occurring alongside technological advances, not seldom driven by big industry players. With the huge reach and infrastructure of Google, the Chrome User Experience Report (CrUX) provides quantitative real-life measurement data of a vast magnitude. Analysis of this steadily expanding dataset aggregating different user experience metrics, yields tangible insights into actual trends and developments. Hence, this paper is the first to study the CrUX dataset from the viewpoint of relevant metrics by quantitative evaluation of users Web browsing experience across three device types and nine European countries. Analysis of data segmented by connection type in the device dimension shows desktops outperforming other device types for all metrics. Similar analysis in the country dimension, shows North European countries (Sweden, Finland) having maximum 4G connections (85.99%, 81.41% respectively) and steadily performing 25%-36% better at the 75th percentile across all metrics compared to the worst performing country. Such a high-level longitudinal analysis of real-life Web browsing experience provides an extensive base for future research.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (51)
  1. I. Martinez-Yelmo, I. Seoane, and C. Guerrero, “Fair quality of experience (qoe) measurements related with networking technologies,” in Wired/Wireless Internet Communications, 8th International Conference, WWIC 2010, Luleå, Sweden, June 1-3, 2010. Proceedings, 2010, pp. 228–239. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13315-2\_19
  2. A. Van Moorsel, “Metrics for the internet age: Quality of experience and quality of business,” in Fifth International Workshop on Performability Modeling of Computer and Communication Systems, Arbeitsberichte des Instituts für Informatik, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany, vol. 34, no. 13.   Citeseer, 2001, pp. 26–31.
  3. A. Balachandran, V. Aggarwal, E. Halepovic, J. Pang, S. Seshan, S. Venkataraman, and H. Yan, “Modeling web quality-of-experience on cellular networks,” in The 20th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, MobiCom’14, Maui, HI, USA, September 7-11, 2014, 2014, pp. 213–224. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2639108.2639137
  4. “Internet trends 2019 by mary meeker,” Retrieved from https://www.bondcap.com/report/itr19/, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  5. “The state of broadband 2018: Broadband catalyzing sustainable development,” https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/opb/pol/S-POL-BROADBAND.19-2018-PDF-E.pdf, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  6. “Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2017-2022,” Accessed: 2023-05-21. [Online]. Available: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white-paper-c11-738429.html
  7. “Desktop vs mobile vs tablet market share worldwide | statcounter global stats,” http://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  8. V. Paxson, J. Mahdavi, A. Adams, and M. Mathis, “An Architecture for Large Scale Internet Measurement,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 36, pp. 48 – 54, 09 1998.
  9. K. Ruth, A. Fass, J. Azose, M. Pearson, E. Thomas, C. Sadowski, and Z. Durumeric, “A World Wide View of Browsing the World Wide Web,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2022, p. 317–336. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3517745.3561418
  10. K. Ruth, D. Kumar, B. Wang, L. Valenta, and Z. Durumeric, “Toppling top lists: Evaluating the accuracy of popular website lists,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2022, p. 374–387. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3517745.3561444
  11. A. Balachandran, V. Sekar, A. Akella, S. Seshan, I. Stoica, and H. Zhang, “A quest for an internet video quality-of-experience metric,” in 11th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, HotNets-XI, Redmond, WA, USA - October 29 - 30, 2012, 2012, pp. 97–102. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2390231.2390248
  12. F. E. Bustamante, D. Clark, and N. Feamster, “Workshop on tracking quality of experience in the internet: Summary and outcomes,” Computer Communication Review, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 55–60, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3041027.3041035
  13. S. Ickin, K. Wac, M. Fiedler, L. Janowski, J. Hong, and A. K. Dey, “Factors influencing Quality of Experience of Commonly used Mobile Applications,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 48–56, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2012.6178833
  14. M. J. Khokhar, N. A. Saber, T. Spetebroot, and C. Barakat, “On Active Sampling of Controlled Experiments for QoE Modeling,” in SIGCOMM Workshops, 2017, pp. 31–36. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3098603.3098609
  15. “Http archive | state of the web report,” http://beta.httparchive.org/reports/state-of-the-web?start=earliest&end=latest&view=list, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  16. H. Kim, H. C. Chan, and S. Gupta, “Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 111–126, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009
  17. A. Cazañas and E. Parra, “Strategies for Mobile Web Design,” Enfoque UTE, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 344–357, 2017.
  18. “Chrome User Experience Report,” accessed: 2023-05-21. [Online]. Available: https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-user-experience-report/
  19. “Google Chrome Privacy Whitepaper,” accessed: 2023-05-21. [Online]. Available: https://www.google.com/chrome/privacy/whitepaper.html
  20. “About pagespeed insights | pagespeed insights | google developers,” https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/insights/v5/about, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  21. “Google BigQuery Documentation | BigQuery | Google Cloud,” accessed: 2023-05-21. [Online]. Available: https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/
  22. “Google bigquery,” https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  23. “W3c paint timing api,” https://w3c.github.io/paint-timing/, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  24. Z. M. Mao, “Diagnosing Mobile Apps’ Quality of Experience: Challenges and Promising Directions,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 66–69, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2016.1
  25. F. A. Kuipers, R. E. Kooij, D. D. Vleeschauwer, and K. Brunnström, “Techniques for measuring quality of experience,” in Wired/Wireless Internet Communications, 8th International Conference, WWIC 2010, Luleå, Sweden, June 1-3, 2010. Proceedings, 2010, pp. 216–227. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13315-2\_18
  26. B. Briscoe, A. Brunström, A. Petlund, D. A. Hayes, D. Ros, I. Tsang, S. Gjessing, G. Fairhurst, C. Griwodz, and M. Welzl, “Reducing Internet Latency: A Survey of Techniques and Their Merits,” IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 2149–2196, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2014.2375213
  27. D. F. Galletta, R. M. Henry, S. McCoy, and P. Polak, “Web site delays: How tolerant are users?” J. AIS, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1, 2004. [Online]. Available: http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol5/iss1/1
  28. “Html specification,” https://html.spec.whatwg.org/event-domcontentloaded, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  29. “What is domcontentloaded? | performance metrics,” https://varvy.com/performance/domcontentloaded.html, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  30. “Dom content loaded - event reference | mdn,” https://developer.mozilla.org/de/docs/Web/Events/DOMContentLoaded, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  31. M. Ford, “Workshop report: reducing internet latency, 2013,” Computer Communication Review, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 80–86, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2602204.2602218
  32. “W3c network information api,” https://wicg.github.io/netinfo/, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  33. “Hypertext transfer protocol (http/1.1): Semantics and content,” https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  34. “User agent strings - google chrome,” https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/user-agent, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  35. L. Humphreys, T. V. Pape, and V. Karnowski, “Evolving mobile media: Uses and conceptualizations of the mobile internet,” J. Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 491–507, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12019
  36. G. P. Fettweis and S. M. Alamouti, “5G: Personal Mobile Internet beyond what Cellular did to Telephony,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 140–145, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2014.6736754
  37. M. Fiedler, T. Hoßfeld, and P. Tran-Gia, “A Generic Quantitative Relationship between Quality of Experience and Quality of Service,” IEEE Network, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 36–41, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2010.5430142
  38. “Analyzing critical rendering path performance | web fundamentals | google developers,” https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/critical-rendering-path/analyzing-crp, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  39. “Uses an excessive dom size | tools for web devolopers | google developers,” https://developers.google.com/web/tools/lighthouse/audits/dom-size, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  40. “First Contentful Paint Explained | GTmetrix,” accessed: 2023-05-21. [Online]. Available: https://gtmetrix.com/blog/first-contentful-paint-explained/
  41. “Internet trends 2010 by mary meeker,” Retrieved from https://www.bondcap.com/report/it10, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  42. “User-centric performance metrics | web fundamentals | google developers,” https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/user-centric-performance-metrics, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  43. “Http archive | page weight,” https://beta.httparchive.org/reports/page-weight?start=2017_10_01&end=2019_04_01&view=list, accessed: 2023-05-21.
  44. “Defining the Core Web Vitals metrics Thresholds,” accessed: 2023-05-21. [Online]. Available: https://web.dev/defining-core-web-vitals-thresholds/
  45. N. T. Bhatti, A. Bouch, and A. Kuchinsky, “Integrating user-perceived quality into web server design,” Computer Networks, vol. 33, no. 1-6, pp. 1–16, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-1286(00)00087-6
  46. Y. M. Shin, S. C. Lee, B. Shin, and H. G. Lee, “Examining influencing factors of post-adoption usage of mobile internet: Focus on the user perception of supplier-side attributes,” Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 595–606, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9184-x
  47. L. Ravindranath, J. Padhye, S. Agarwal, R. Mahajan, I. Obermiller, and S. Shayandeh, “Appinsight: Mobile app performance monitoring in the wild,” in 10th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI 2012, Hollywood, CA, USA, October 8-10, 2012, 2012, pp. 107–120. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi12/technical-sessions/presentation/ravindranath
  48. V. Aggarwal, E. Halepovic, J. Pang, S. Venkataraman, and H. Yan, “Prometheus: toward quality-of-experience estimation for mobile apps from passive network measurements,” in 15th Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, HotMobile ’14, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, February 26-27, 2014, 2014, pp. 18:1–18:6. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2565585.2565600
  49. F. Almeida and J. Monteiro, “The role of responsive design in web development,” Webology, vol. 14, pp. 48–65, 12 2017.
  50. C. Bruni, F. D. Priscoli, G. Koch, A. Palo, and A. Pietrabissa, “Quality of experience provision in the future internet,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 302–312, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2014.2344658
  51. F. Köster, G. Mittag, and S. Möller, “Modeling the overall quality of experience on the basis of underlying quality dimensions,” in Ninth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience, QoMEX 2017, Erfurt, Germany, May 31 - June 2, 2017, 2017, pp. 1–6. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2017.7965647
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now