You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think we all would assume that a 1mb jpg on an average HTML site would consume less energy than a 1mb JavaScript file. I do think this is a reasonable assumption.
Yet right now I don't think that CO.js is factoring that in.
I don't know what the multiplier should be for the JS, but that is something that we could test out with profilers and then adjust over time.
Does this seem like a reasonable addition?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@mgifford I've probably explained why CO2.js doesn't do this at the moment in my reply to #138. Pasting below as well for anyone stumbling upon this issue.
When it comes to generating carbon estimates, CO2.js is simply a wrapper around existing accepted models. That is to say, there's no "secret sauce" in CO2.js or no additional functionality that CO2.js adds around these models. That is to say, if a model used data transfer, time on site, and CPU usage as the input for calculating carbon emissions, then that's what CO2.js will have the input. Currently, there's no such model - or at least no such model implemented in CO2.js.
I think we all would assume that a 1mb jpg on an average HTML site would consume less energy than a 1mb JavaScript file. I do think this is a reasonable assumption.
Yet right now I don't think that CO.js is factoring that in.
I don't know what the multiplier should be for the JS, but that is something that we could test out with profilers and then adjust over time.
Does this seem like a reasonable addition?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: