 I'm going to start off with a tiny questionnaire. Please raise your hand if you agree with the following. I have a website. I get visitors on my website. I care about the climate. I like win-win scenarios. And I'm tired of raising my hand. In the next 40 minutes, I'm going to tell you how to optimize your website. We'll try to focus on changes that have a positive climate impact, which are also benefiting your business and your visitors. It's pretty close to the concept of the triple bottom line for people, planet, and profit. Most of the presentation will skirt alongside of those concepts, and I'll try to touch on them when they become apparent. To me, that sounds like a win-win scenario to me. A little bit about myself so that you know who's talking to you. The guy on the left is me, myself. The woman on my side is Lisanne. She's been my girlfriend for over 10 years now. We both love train travel, so we visited awesome places like Lapland, Switzerland, Italy last year. I myself like to play a lot of chess. I'm not that good at it, but I'm still learning. I also run a company. It's also called Teo van der Zee. It's on the bottom left. And I help clients, such as the one shown on the logos, to optimize their websites, either for sustainability, conversion, or both. An overview of this presentation, first a little bit of an introduction, then a bit of technical stuff, user-experience-related stuff, a summary, and some questions. We're going to start off with the introduction. Jo's did a bit of this. I'm going to double over some of the elements just to give an extra angle to how I view things that he told. It's perfectly along the same lines. Basically, what's the problem? The world is facing severe climate change issues. Global temperatures are rising. Most of this we know. Global temperatures are rising faster than ever. A lot of forest fires last year. A lot of the heat records being broken. And the digital industry has a major impact on this. Again, perfectly in line with what Jo's just told, he basically covered the part until visitors get on your website or bots. And I'm covering the part that deals with the part after that. So they're on your website now. How can we make the impact of that as little as possible? The emissions that the global digital industry has at this point are very similar to what the global airline industry is doing. So one of the major villains in, well, carbon land basically is flying. Everyone's being, well, angry at the airline industry for causing so much carbon emissions. And basically, the digital industry has a very similar carbon footprint. It's being estimated by people way smarter than me at about 3% of the global carbon emission output is being caused by both the airline industry and the digital industry. So it's on par at the same level. Websites play a significant role in that. You might be wondering why that's the case. Not entirely because Joost just told you, but I'm going to tell it again. All those servers and devices need to be made. So while Joost told a lot about bots and people coming to websites and crawling them, whatever you're having in your pocket right now in terms of phones, they were created by using valuable metals, by using plastic that had to be created. All those processes need energy in order to make them happen. Then, of course, they need to be shipped because they're not made in your backyard. So after they were created, they also need to be transported towards you. And of course, all these devices need energy. So those two people on the front are using their telephone. This is using energy. They will need to charge them later in the evening or later in the day. This energy needs to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, this often still comes from coal. While there's a lot of green energy movements going on these days, the majority of energy that we're using worldwide is still mostly fossil fuels. This really differs per country in that sense. So it's not that every country uses so many percentages of fuel from coal or from oil. But in general, worldwide, we're still more coal and oil than green fossil fuels. This is a chart published on nature.com. And it's projecting how much energy we will be using in about eight to 10 years. As you can see, the charts are going off the chart. There's still a predicted enormous rise in energy needed in order to keep all our interactive devices connected. Also an important element is these massive server parks need a lot of cooling. So all this cooling also needs to happen. And this creates heat because it takes away the heat from the energy center and it needs to cool. So what can digital specialists do to lower their impact? I tried to look for a plug-in. Didn't work. As you can see, the most popular plug-in has exactly 50 installs. And it doesn't even do what I'm trying to do based on this presentation. So installing a plug-in won't fix it. At least not the bit that we're talking about. Of course, Jo's talked about the bit before and there might be solutions in terms of plugins. But you can't fix this one with a plug-in at least not straight away. So we're gonna be looking at the technical bit of how to improve websites for sustainability. Hence the title of the presentation. Why? This is where the triple P comes in. It's really difficult to sell companies purely on sustainability. Cause if you tell them, we'll be making your website more sustainable, they'll ask, what's in it for me? This will cost me money. This will cost my employees time. How can we make sure this benefits everyone? Well, for starters, faster loading pages have an increased conversion rate. It's been proven across Walmart, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, Bing, they all have major case studies with millions of people in them showing that websites sometimes even 0.1 seconds faster have significant increases in conversion rate. So in terms of the triple P's, this one is for profit, it actually generates more money to be more sustainable in this context. Also, loading speed is considered a Google ranking factor, not one of the most major ones at the moment according to, once again, people who know more about this than I. But it's being considered as a factor and I'm predicting it will be a stronger factor in the future to come, exactly based on stuff that Joost was already mentioning. It's also costing the engines time and money to crawl slow websites. As you probably can hear in the speed of my talking, we'll be going through this at a pretty high tempo. I can slow down a bit if it goes too fast, but I'm just trying to give you as much information as possible and the slides will be available after the conference anyway. So if you want to go through something in more detail, just look up the slide and try to find on the internet additional information or contact me or someone else dealing with sustainability to find out more information even than what I'm trying to convey in this 40-minute talk. So you can study them calmly at the office or the home office, which is also really popular these days. It's really important to try to identify issues that are easy for you to fix for your website. What's easy to fix on one website might be super complicated to fix on another. And it's really easy to get stuck in like the I can't fix everything syndrome and just don't do anything. There's almost always fixes on your own website or your own company that you can do to make it more sustainable, to make it more profitable, et cetera. That's why I put up the 80-20 sign symbol for the Pareto law. Usually 80% of the fixes... That got complicated in my head. Usually it's 20% of the changes that cause 80% of the results. So there's only usually a small amount of fixes that you can do to get the most impact out of it. And the other 80% is usually a lot of work and way more difficult. So start with the easy stuff instead of try to do it all or start on the wrong end. We're going through five different areas. There is hosting, caching, code, video, and pictures. Each one of these elements have an impact on how your website creates carbon output in a different way. We're going to start off with hosting because, well, obviously every website needs hosting in some way. Many hosting companies still run on fossil fuels. So whatever you do with your website, it's run on hosting that's powered by fossil fuels. Therefore, your website creates fossil fuel output, therefore, carbon emissions if you run it on a fossil fuel hosting. There are companies that are switching to green. They're going fast, especially in the Netherlands. A lot of companies are switching to green, the hosting companies, but many still compensate their admissions. So they're not using green energy to power, but they're still compensating. And a lot of companies are mixing some of these solutions. You might be wondering, how am I doing? The bottom right shows the URL that you can go to. You can literally go to this URL. It's a Dutch foundation. I found out typing your URL in the window and then you either see a happy smiley or a sad smiley based on whether your website is hosted green or not. As you can see, mine is hosted green and that's primarily because it's hosted on Cloudflare. What Cloudflare is adding as well is that it's adding a so-called CDN, especially for websites that are serving a more distributed audience, so not necessarily websites that are only targeted at Dutch visitors. It can also help to decrease the distance that the data needs to travel from the hosting company to the customer. This distance also has an impact on the carbon emissions that a website has. So if you use a CDN, such as Cloudflare, no affiliation, you can decrease that distance and once again, triple P, you can increase your profit as well because your website will load faster. So as you can see, it's in a lot of these factors that once you approach the sustainability from the right angle, you can also benefit some of the other piece, such as profit and people. It's not an or-or in many cases. Most of the sustainability fixes that you can do will also have a benefit for yourself or the people that you're working with or for. Cloudflare is even going a step further. Instead of just going renewable, they're back-dating all the carbon emissions that they did from the start of the company and they're compensating for those as well. So I think this is a really good initiative from a digital company showing that digital does not have to be a negative force for the environment. Joost also mentioned it. Switching to HTTP2 or even 3 at this point is one of the options to also go more green. This one is really technical, so technical that I would even recommend just taking this to the IT people if that's not yourself. It really depends. It usually is a positive output to switch to HTTP2 but not always. So keep in mind when you're planning this change. Second off, caching. Caching is basically a way of saving the resources or even full pages in a way that does not involve doing everything it needs to in order to get your website on the screen. So if you cache a page properly, you do not need to run your server-side code to parse your HTML. You do not need to fetch all your CSS files again. You do not need to resize all your images on the fly. Basically, it creates a pre-package package that will allow the visitors to just get the package that is done already and save a whole lot of loading speed and carbon output in the process. It allows you to prevent these from loading multiple times as I just mentioned with several solutions being able to do so. In particular for WordPress, as opposed to the sustainability results that I just shown you earlier, caching is one that's really advanced in WordPress land. There's a lot of solutions, usually with millions plus users. I won't pretend to know which one of these is best, in particular for your use case, but if you plan on improving your website in terms of either sustainability, profit or loading speed, preferably all of them, there's many of these solutions out there that will probably cover your use cases, such as the one as these, which is not only doing specifically the caching that I refer to, but it's also doing stuff like the responsive image placeholders, combining files, even HTTP2 precursory steps to make sure that it becomes easier. Once again, it's up to your specific use case to decide which one is best for you, but there's a lot of options out there to improve the caching of your pages. Also, a tool that you can use to check out how well caching is handled on your own website. I'm not sure, by race of hands, who is familiar with Google Lighthouse. I would say about half to two thirds. This is a tool in Google Chrome. If you open Google Chrome and you open the developer console, there is a button called a lighthouse, which you can use as like an interactive, specifically looking at this website on the side, which can of course be any website, and you can look at a lot of performance metrics, even some SEO metrics, accessibility metrics, to see how well you're performing on those. So I did this for my own website, and as you can see, for me, there's also room for improvement in terms of caching. I don't fully agree with recommendations in this sense, but that's way off-scope for this presentation. There's a lot of tips being handed in these lighthouse reports that you can immediately use and use for free to improve your own website for sustainability and performance. Next up is code. Basically, what Yoast talked about was crawlers fetching something. So they either fetch RSS feeds, or they fetched API rest links, or they fetched pages, but there's also a lot of files that normal visitors would fetch when they visit your website. Usually, a crawler, I think at least, will crawl mostly HTML and files that it can find. But visitors will basically fetch anything in a browser because it needs to render the full page. So there's images, JavaScript, CSS, HTML, and fonts. As you can see on the top, we're getting a bit bloated. Compared to 2012 we're loading, I would say at least three to four times as much files and data just to render the website. So the visitor experience is not necessarily better. It's just bigger. If you look at the same data for mobile, we're about five to six times as much data that we're fetching just to get the website on the page. Another same data in a different way visualized. We basically increased it by multiples compared to 2012. One of the culprits, just naming one, there's a lot of them jQuery. With modern JavaScript, jQuery is probably useless for, I would say 90% of the websites, as long as you know how to make sure that it doesn't get specifically used on yours. jQuery is loaded on a ridiculous amount of percentage of pages still, just because everyone was using it in the past and isn't willing to change up their ways to not rely on them anymore. One of the more popular modern ones, React frameworks, similar story, a lot of KB and JavaScript loaded, many if not most normal websites, so not applications, but normal websites, they do not need a framework like React to do the stuff that they're doing. So once again, you can ask yourself, is this the way that I need to load my files? Do I need a framework like React to build my page? Or is it just super handy to do this one tiny thing? And then I have to load the framework on each and every page. An overview of what JS frameworks are being loaded. As you can see, it's a wide range of frameworks that's being loaded. I don't think most of them have particular purposes, but for instance, moment.js is used mostly to convert dates. So a date that you see in American format, you can format to Dutch format. And that's, I think 70K of JavaScript is being loaded just to do that one tiny, tiny thing that with modern JavaScript can also be handled with one or two lines of JavaScript. Yay, I never use animations in my presentation, but I think this was the one exception where I should. Animations are useless in almost any cases and particularly in this presentation. They cost a lot of processing power because stuff has to move on the screen and either the video card or the processor itself has to handle those movements on the screen. If you scroll down and stuff moves on the screen, this costs a lot more energy to process than if the stuff weren't moving. Once again, multiple profits win-win. Many visitors also hate it when stuff moves on the screen. I usually use an example of a prehistoric tiger which matches up really well with the zoo. So I think I'm gonna slide that in the presentation. In the past, when stuff was moving, it was critical. If you were on the Savannah and you saw something moving in the distance, that might have been a tiger. So we're really primed to look for moving stuff and move that on top of our priority list when stuff is happening. If you look at a website and this amazing image slider is going left to right at speeds that you can't imagine, it will immediately draw our attention to that tiger on top of the page time and time again. Just try reading casually a text that's below a sliding visual slider. It's almost impossible because we're so hardwired to look for that movement. Again, one of the win-win situations, many of these social media platforms have tracking scripts on your website such as Facebook, Google, Twitter also has an interactive one. Basically, they just load up files to make sure that they can track whatever's happening on your website. That's not really privacy-friendly and it's also not good for your loading time. So I don't think privacy is one we covered already but it's also a win-win in this scenario to make sure that both the website loads faster and you serve your visitors better in a way that's more privacy-friendly. Next up, video. One of the questions in Yoast's presentation was related to streaming video, I think. It's really difficult to quantify the impact of this. I tried to look once again for people who are more advanced in this than I was specifically related to video. In my personal opinion, I figured video must be like the worst in terms of carbon emissions because it's such big files compared to what, for instance, HML or CSS is doing. Apparently, there are servers out there that are so specifically set up for video that video is getting less bad compared to what it was in the past but of course, video is still really large and it moves the screen a lot so computers have a difficult time with this. One of the major parts why it's so difficult to quantify video is because of where they are hosted. Usually, they're hosted at either Vimeo or YouTube or Vistia, which are video hosting platforms that are set up by this. If you decide to self-host, the problem explodes in terms of impact because your server is not set up in a way to stream videos at least not to large number of audiences. Therefore, self-hosting videos probably isn't wise. Unless you have a specific reason not to, host your videos on YouTube for now. I'm sure there'll be platforms in the future that are super environmentally friendly and offer you benefits that YouTube does but for now, it's probably the wisest choice unless you have a reason not to do that. Also, unless you have a specific reason to, turn off autoplay myself and I can imagine a large percentage of the room will be irritated by videos that autoplay and the autoplay causes the carbon emissions to already start flowing for visitors that probably don't want to see the video play anyway. So once again, win-win. If possible, try applying lazy loading to the video so that if you have a video that isn't visible on the screen without visitors scrolling down, why load the video in the first place if visitors can't see anyway what the content is. It's the same concept of images. They also have lazy loading which is getting much more popular but videos can have a similar concept applied to them. Then there's background videos. It used to be a thing, like all of a sudden everyone was using background videos and never got the vibe because once again, there's the tiger movement distraction. I had to look for a particularly bad example and it actually took me quite a while to find one that was as terrible as this one. They sell huge yachts and there's like a video of people like running the jet skis along the yachts. I don't think environment is their main concern for this company. They loaded a whopping 27 MB of background video. So this video was not adding anything. It was just showing the people like going around on their jet skis. So I don't think background video in this context is necessarily the way to go, especially with file sizes as the ones they are offering to the visitors. Last up, at least for this part, images. This is the same chart, but now focusing on images. We were there in the past and I think we doubled it in about 10 years. Mobile, four to five times, I would guess based on the charts. So triple and five times. Those images didn't necessarily get better in terms of what's on them. I mean, if I show you an image that's made on my K7500i Nokia, you would probably recognize what was on it, though the file was probably like 100KB. If I shoot an image with my current iPhone, it will probably be somewhere between five and seven megabytes. Yes, I can put it on a billboard. Super cool. But I'm not planning to do that anyway. So one can imagine if these images really need to be as large when they're put on websites. Therefore, small checklist. If you want, if you're considering images on your website, try doing the following. Can you remove the image? Would it seriously decrease the value of what your website is showing? If it has to stay on, can you resize it? There's great tools about it available for this, such as Tiny PNG, Kraken or Image Optim. If you're using Mac, they can seriously decrease image size, sometimes up to like 10% of what you're seeing in file size. And I cannot see the visual difference even when I'm looking for it. Can you compress it even more? Oh, wait. The resizing one was in actual width and height, and the compression one is the same width and height, but then compressed in terms of quality. Are you using the optimal file size? The file type, sorry. I just heard Joost mention something about WebP. I was gonna say WebP is probably the best way to go, but apparently in WordPress, there is someone who considers this not the best way to go at least for now. So you have to consider different file types. Usually there are better file types than the ones you're serving with. PNG is a common one to serve everything in, but for instance for images, usually JPEG can be a better one until WebP is available, because that's like a smart one that basically picks the best one from the list based on the technology that you have on your device. I'll let you try to answer this one. We have a winner in the room. I could do a whole presentation about carousels, but it can be summarized in one word, no. Can you apply lazy loading to the image? I tried to lazily use the same cat to apply the same format to the presentation as well. If possible, don't load an image that won't be visible for a user. It's useless in so many contexts, including sustainability. Try to lazy load it only when a visitor needs to see it. Once again, Lighthouse. Lighthouse is able to show images and provide more data on how they're being loaded, why they're being loaded, and if they're being loaded. For instance, this image apparently does not have an explicit height and width, and that causes the browser to have difficulties with finding the correct image size and showing it. So therefore it's probably loading one or two formats and it's costing unnecessarily loading time. As you can see, it's a small issue on this website, but there's websites that are literally loading billboard sized straight from the phone images on the top of the header in a format that's like this large. So that's absolutely useless waste of both loading time and sustainability effects. This was the technical part. You guys got through. What I want to add is a bit about the user experience. This actually is closer to what I usually do on a daily basis, and what I will try to show you is that sustainability and conversion is not only in optimizing for technical stuff. Yes, it's important to optimize the technical stuff. That's why it is in the presentation first. So if you optimize it for technical stuff, then you won't have to load all that stuff that you fixed in every page view there's a visitor does, but there's more out there. Once again, win-win scenarios. I really like to put the focus on the win-win because it's so much easier to tell people to do stuff when you don't have to sell them a negative. If you're telling people to donate money, they will probably figure out that their wallet will be less heavy. So it's yes, it's a plus. They give money to a good purpose, but they will have less money. If you can tell someone that they can donate money and that scientific research shows that their happiness will increase as a result of spending that money, their own personal happiness, you converted that win-loss into a win-win. And so it's easier to have people to persuade people to do stuff when you can convert it to a win-win instead of it being a win-loss or even a win-loss loss. One of the examples on using the user experience to have a positive impact on sustainability is to lower the number of page views that visitors need. So if you have a page, and for instance, it shows three images, three CSS files and three JS files, and a visitor clicks on to the next page, they will probably need to load a similar amount of images again because they went to a different page. Of course, there's caching. Like that's the big one in the room. If you can apply caching to it, less images will need to be loaded or they will be loaded in a more efficient way. That's why you covered caching in the previous part of the presentation. But if you can make sure that visitors will go to the page that they need to go faster or more efficiently, it will help carbon emissions from being emitted into the environment because there were less pages that need to be visited. Win-win, visitors will get to the place they wanted to go faster and therefore they will be more happy with your company or purchase your products or services more. One of the great examples is the local municipality website of the place where I live in Bilthoven. They have a super smart, it's called TopTaken in Dutch and it doesn't really translate well to English, so we have it in Dutch. I think it's TopTasks, but it's not exactly the same concept. Like the motions? Basically most used options, yeah. I would say that 90% of the visitors that come to this website want one of these six buttons or that one. So if you come to the homepage, there's no need to scroll to an endless archive of options or click through some category levels that will get you to either one of these. They probably did user testing and figured out that everyone wants to go here anyway, so now why not add them as huge buttons to the homepage? For one of my previous clients, I did the same concept, basically in a commercial concept, this is what people want to do and they usually want to do it through that button. Win-win, company is happy when they click there. So if you can make sure that, for instance, on the homepage or on a different page that a lot of people land on, you can already pre-decide for your visitors where they probably will want to go anyway, consider putting big buttons up that will take them there. Also, in a more fashion context, I'm working with and own a lot of fashion websites because they have quite large environmental impact due to the product that they're developing. If you can create a product page, sorry, a category page that will allow visitors to see so much data from the category page itself that they don't need to yo-yo back from the category to the product page or middle mouse open the entire row of images just by showing the specific dresses that are available in different colors, the price that it has, the discount, discount mentioned in percentages, it will save so many clicks from visitors that will need this data anyway, but if there's no way to get the data to them instead of, wow, I will redo that whole sentence. Visitors will need this data. They will get this data. Usually they'll middle mouse open the entire row of images to get it and load all this unnecessary data if that's not one of the pieces of clothing that they're considering to buy. If you can find ways to present as much data in an appealing format to get it to them, it will save a lot of clicks and therefore page views and therefore emissions and therefore unhappy visitors. Another way of really dealing with this are filters. I wrote a really long blog post about filters because there's so much room for improvement just to help people get the right piece of clothing. They probably know what they want. They know what type of figure they have. They know what colors they're looking for. Give them filters. Make it easy for them to find it. Less clicks, more happiness in terms of visitors, probably more profit for the company. So it's a huge win-win just to have these pages improved in a way that basically give the people what they want. Another example for this was this one, what did they have? They had the additional star ratings and additional labels and a way to favor the item from the category page. So this is not a free pass to change your category pages up with all the bells and whistles that you can find just to make sure that people will not have to click through. That's not how it works, but if you can use something like user research or user testing to find out what options people would like to have on the category page, try to figure out ways to get it to them. A really nice way to save page views as well, especially on mobile, is to allow for multi-select and save. I think in my research, only 4% of all the fashion websites that I could find in Holland use this type of save. All the other pages are like click, reload, click, reload. So for every filter, you're reloading the entire page. This one, oh, this one had the labels. Usually there's comments on the screen, but the comments are not there. So I have to guess what comments I typed under there. And that's pretty difficult, I can imagine. This one had the labels to show which ones were vegan, which ones were sustainably produced, et cetera. Another way of making your website more sustainable in terms of user experience is to guide people to more sustainable choices. I just saw the five-minute sign, so I have no time to do the detail I would have loved to do about this. Please talk to me after the presentation to get more details about this. Super long story short. People have an intention to do stuff, such as lose weight, stop smoking, eat more healthy, move more, and then there's the actual behavior. There's a huge gap in between what people want to do and what they're actually doing. There's been quite a lot of research done, how this applies to sustainable behavior, and so also to how to apply this to website sustainable behavior. I will just mention the ways that are identified as having an impact on this, and then you can look further into this if you want to. Use social influence to promote sustainable actions, breaking bad habits and encouraging good ones, leveraging the domino effect of positive spillover, the site where to talk to the heart or the brain, and this is basically an example showing how to do this heart and brain. This is specifically a brain one. It's actually showing what materials were used to create this specific clothing. A lot of companies are talking about this, but G-Star just put on a big chart on every piece of clothing that they had. This one is sustainable, this one is not. If you like that one, sure buy it, but we also have a sustainable other option and it's created of this and that material. Then there's basically the other way, talking to the heart, our water is being polluted, our animals are suffering, human rights are being abused, et cetera. So if you imagine how to talk to the heart or the brain, there are different ways of reaching the people that you want. Last one of the five, favor promoting experience over ownership. Basically Uber is a good example of this. Why would you want the car if you can Uber somewhere? I know there's like all sorts of buts and ifs, but an example of not buying what you need, but basically renting it. Last one of the user experience ones, reducing the percentage of returns. Returns are specifically win-win case because no one wants to return their stuff. They want the right stuff in the first place and websites need to make it easier for us to get it. So websites, please provide good reviews, make the reviews filterable, make them smart, make them clickable, provide images, provide ratings, provide usefulness. Again, super long blog post that I wrote about this, detailing how to make your websites more return less. Basically fashion is like, well the worst in terms of returns because almost 50, 50% of every fashion item that is bought is being returned. Percentage is ridiculous if you imagine it and it's basically costing everyone. The webshop is paying, the visitor is sad because they have to go to the post office to return and it's costing almost 15 euros for each return. So if you're ordering a five euro piece of clothing and you return it, it will cost the webshop 15 euros to process everything and get it back into their stock. Then there's images, please provide good ones. It's so difficult to see how a piece of clothing looks if you can't hold it in your hands. Make sure the sizing is correct. Another long blog post on how to fix this. There's so many ways of getting this right and so many webshops are doing it wrong. Provide info on the material. I just gave the example of GSTARRA. Here's them again. They provide a lot of information about the materials of the items that they're using. Consider video. Yes, it's also not always a great way to use video, but this is one of the more nuanced examples. If you can use videos in a way that creates less returns, then yes, it has a negative impact due to the carbon emissions of the video itself. But if you can limit those by technological solutions, then perhaps it will reduce the number of returns. So this is one of the ones that you might consider using a testing on, for instance, user testing, A-B testing to see whether the items are being returned more or less using the video. Where it's a summary. Basically, get your hosting in order. Consider using green. Consider using solutions like CDNs to improve the amount of fossil fuels that your website needs based on purely hosting. Fix your caching. For WordPress specifically, there's good plugins out there. There's free plugins out there that will handle your caching in ways that not your entire page needs to reload. Get your code in order. If you're using videos, host them properly and make sure they're only showing for visitors that actually need them. And if you're using images, consider removing, resizing, reducing or compressing. That fourth one that I just mentioned on the slides that you can look back as I mentioned before, to reduce the amount of, well, carbon impact and basically loading speed, which will impact your profit and your people. I think right on time, based on the images.