> The person who clicked noticed no delay.

Just to be the "actually..." guy: People notice 200ms delay. It's just that in cases it doesn't cause any bad feelings."

I learned three thresholds over the years. Well, one of them decades ago and the others recently. Basically:

At 50ms, you notice.

At 400ms, you care.

At 2000ms, without output, you wonder if it crashed. (That was the old one.)

> At 2000ms, without output, you wonder if it crashed. (That was the old one.)

That must have been a really, really long time ago indeed, because there are very few websites now that take less than 2000ms to load. The linked site didn’t even come close on my phone (probably 3-4 seconds), and I most certainly didn’t wonder whether it had crashed.

The timing refers to feeling like the device acknowledged your request

Not seeing the final completion of the request.

Your phone probably showed something after you clicked the link but before the page rendered: Link highlight change, a progress bar, etc.

If your phone had crashed and the browser was non-responsive, you would have recognized it quickly. More quickly than the page load time.

This is magnificent!

Gave me roller-coaster ride across 40 years of gathering knowledge about computers and networks.

I'm very jealous of whoever created that. Well done!

Wonderful page, congratulations! navigating to the end takes time but the contents and the presentation are great

200ms is insane, 50ms is the goal.

But really, great page.

Someone new could learn from it the basics of what to check when debugging web.