Reading/Web/Projects/Performance/Removal of secondary content in production

Hypothesis
Certain content doesn't necessarily need to be shipped to the user upfront and sometimes not at all. A good example is the navbox content (this content also is not optimised for mobile but that's a secondary concern and out of scope for this test). We can remove this HTML from the initial page load and lazy load it if and when needed. Before introducing the necessary APIs for lazy loading such content, we wanted to gauge how impactful the removal was.

Despite previous experiments showing that this made little impact on performance, it is unclear whether this reflects the global audience. Currently our 2G tests run from Dulles (Washington, East coast USA) which is much closer to our data centers then for example a country like Indonesia. It is thus not clear whether the webpagetest data we are collecting is a good indication for our global traffic. To understand whether reducing HTML size can make any impact on performance we'd need to view global traffic, specifically the navigation timing reports we collect from real end users.

Prediction
Based on previous experiments, removing navboxes for a quality page such as Barack Obama should There is potential for:
 * drop the number of bytes we ship to users
 * make little to no difference to the fully load time
 * increase the time to first byte (TTFB) from a clear cache due to the time needed for the MobileFormatter to transform the parser output
 * no different to first render
 * Impact on global total page load time
 * Impact on bytes out in the cluster summary for text cache eqiad
 * Impact on global page views traffic due to more engaged visitors

Method
A config change was made to strip navboxes and content not designed for display on mobile (the nomobile class) on Tuesday 15th March around 00:00 PST.

A period of waiting time was left to account for cached pages being updated to respect the new setting and allow data to be collected.