💡more concise result tables

[jbmoelker]

I love this project. I've worked with different automated Lighthouse tools, but they always lacked the ability to run on multiple URLs. So it's great to see how advanced the configuration options of this project are!

Since running Lighthouse on many URLs generates many results, I'm opening this issue to discuss possibilities for more concise result tables. I'm thinking of combining all results into a single table:

---

Lighthouse audit for https://deploy-preview-100--spacefinder.netlify.com:

📄📄📄 Pages	⚡ Perf	♿ A11y	🏅 BP	🔎 SEO	📱 PWA
thresholds	82	90	90	85	70
home /en/	92 (90) ✅⬆️	...	...	...	...
all buildings /en/buildings/	85 (87) ✅⬇️	...	...	...	...
building /en/buildings/8-arch/	💯(99) ✅⬆️	...	...	...	...
space /en/buildings/8-arch/spaces/ssp00001--library/	72 (82) ❌⬇️	...	...	...	...

---

Ideas in here:

• Base URL on top
• Routes in first column, in this case the relative URL and an alias for the route
• Columns for each category, followed by their thresholds
• Each cell would contain current value (92), old value in parenthesis (if possible), what the trend compared to the last value is ⬆️/ ⬇️/ ... and whether it passes ✅ / ❌

Each route could link to the more detailed results.

[lfre]

Hi @jbmoelker! Thanks for the issue, and for trying Lightkeeper!

I think this is a fantastic idea. I really dig the consolidation. My main concern is that this table could be long depending on how many URLs you have. I think the current advantage of using drop-downs per URL lets you dig in as needed.

My other concern is thresholds and warnings because they can be added per URL as well, so they may have to stay as a column.

The alignment of the values with the icons can also be confusing. For example, in home. Your budget is 90, and the score is 92. Both icons ✅⬆️ technically refer to 92, but it looks like if 92 = ✅, and 90 = ⬆️, because they're vertically aligned.

Overall, I think this could be a great improvement, but not necessarily a replacement. Possibly, an output style that can be defined in the configuration?

Thanks again for your interest!

[jbmoelker]

Nice to hear! I dropped Lightkeeper with some of my perf-obsessed colleagues. Hope they do a bit more experimenting with it first. So that we get a better feel of what information is key and what could be extended details.

I'd stick with one output style for now. Always an option to add another. But also means more to maintain. Unless pluggable of course ;)