WRAPS – Online Book Shops

6 browser windows containing symbols: a tree, a books emoji an accessibility icon, a lock, a heart monitor and one with normal web content
Posted on (updated: ) by Klaas Ole Jordan

In the fourth part of my WRAPS series, I examined the homepages of major European bookstores. Fortunately, the top-ranked website also impresses with its concept.

The bookstores I’ve tested are Adlibris 🇸🇪️, Bookshop.org 🇬🇧️, El Cotre Inglés 🇪🇸️, Empik 🇵🇱️, Fnac 🇫🇷️, Genialokal 🇩🇪️, Helikon 🇧🇬️, Hugendubel 🇩🇪️, Libris.nl 🇳🇱️, Mondadori 🇮🇹️, Rahva Raamat 🇪🇪️, Thalia 🇩🇪️, Waterstones 🇬🇧️ and as a reference point Amazon Books 🇺🇸️.

  1. Result
  2. Criteria
  3. Bookstore Homepages
  4. Conclusion

The Result

The evaluation is again based on five criteria, with the weighting significantly simplified. Ecological sustainability, Core Web Vitals (performance), accessibility, and privacy are now equally weighted. Up to 5% of points may be deducted for ethically questionable content and methods.

The result reveals a clear winner: the homepage of Genialokal.de. This is a platform that enables small bookstores to sell their books online, allowing customers to directly support local retailers.

# Shop Total CWV CO2 A11y Privacy Content
1. Genialokal 78.6% 100% 43% 83% 88% 0%
2. Waterstones 58.8% 96% 16% 49% 75% 0%
3. uk.bookshop.org 50.1% 100% 28% 46% 27% 0%
4. Adlibris 49.2% 100% 28% 50% 18% 0%
5. Hugendubel 46.7% 66% 5% 79% 10% 0%
6. Mondadori 45.5% 64% 35% 39% 44% 0%
7. Amazon Books 44.9% 91% 34% 57% 17% -5%
8. Thalia 46.6% 86% 18% 47% 35% 0%
9. libris.nl 42.6% 99% 0% 38% 33% 0%
10. Fnac 41.5% 87% 0% 43% 37% 0%
11. Rahva Raamat 38.3% 67% 11% 56% 18% 0%
12. Empik 36.8% 36% 0% 37% 53% -5%
13. Helikon 26.0% 62% 0% 39% 3% 0%
14. El Corte Inglés 25.0% 7% 0% 84% 10% 0%

The Criteria

Some familiar issues have become apparent once again.

Core Web Vitals

Overall, the homepages perform well in terms of loading speed. However, several websites lost points due to significant jank during page construction. This highlights the impact of large portions of the DOM being built client-side using JavaScript.

CO2 Emissions

This category saw the lowest average scores. Large images, missing lazy loading, and massive JavaScript libraries (primarily for tracking) led to significant point deductions.

On average, nearly 4.7 MB of data is consumed per initial page load. Even on subsequent loads, it remains over 1 MB.

Accessibility

Websites performed moderately in this area. Many websites were only available in one language. Some offer the ability to adjust colors and fonts via external tools like Eyeable. However, I now view such solutions more critically, as they are rejected by several initiatives. Nevertheless, for this test, I awarded full points for their integration (better than nothing, I suppose).

Privacy

I get the impression that things are getting worse in this regard. Almost all websites establish connections to Google servers without consent. The fact that this is illegal and may incur penalties seems to be knowingly accepted by the operators.

There are also some security vulnerabilities. This is never ideal, but particularly problematic on websites where users are required to enter personal (account) data.

Content

This time, points were deducted for identified dark patterns and advertising for ethically/morally questionable books. Fortunately, I was able to identify very few dark patterns.

How Bookstore Results Were Determined

More details on the results are summarized in the PDF file. There, you can also see how many points were achieved in the subcategories.

The Genialokal platform wins this ranking by a significant margin, leading in all categories with an overall score of 78.6%. The website is also available as a PWA.

100% Core Web Vitals
The homepage loads relatively quickly and without visual jank. Interactions with the website work without delay, even with 1.2 MB of JavaScript.
43% Carbon Footprint
Less than 2 MB of data is downloaded on the first load—an achievement no other website matched. However, 1.2 MB of JavaScript and outdated font formats detract from the score. On the positive side, the servers run on green energy.
83% Accessibility
The website integrates an accessibility tool, allowing users to adjust colors and fonts. However, it is only available in German. In Lighthouse, the website scores above average.
88% Privacy
No connections to external servers are established, which is a true rarity. However, the lack of security headers is a drawback.

Waterstones takes second place with 58.8%. Privacy and performance stand out positively.

96% Core Web Vitals
Minimal point deductions for jank; otherwise, nothing to criticize.
16% Carbon Footprint
With 700 KB of JavaScript, this website is the most frugal. More lazy loading would further improve the result.
49% Accessibility
Good Lighthouse scores, but unfortunately, there is no option to adjust color, language, or font.
75% Privacy
Only one external tracking tool is requested. However, some security headers are missing.

Bookshop.org secures third place with just 50.1%, with the website only excelling in performance.

100% Core Web Vitals
Fast, jank-free, responsive—nothing to complain about.
28% Carbon Footprint
Too much data is loaded on the first visit: 1.4 MB, mostly external JavaScript, and over 70 images negatively impact the score. On the positive side, the servers run on green energy.
46% Accessibility
Good Lighthouse scores, but unfortunately, there is no option to adjust color, language, or font.
27% Privacy
Many external servers are contacted, including those from Google, Reddit, and Microsoft. Google servers are even used to serve some images, which incurs point deductions.

Adlibris takes fourth place with just under half (49.2%) of the points. Privacy issues prevent a better ranking.

100% Core Web Vitals
No point deductions, although the homepage has worse values than uk.bookshop.org.
28% Carbon Footprint
Same score as uk.bookshop.org, with the same amount of JavaScript. Significantly less data is loaded on the first visit, but it is still too much for a good score.
50% Accessibility
Perfect Lighthouse scores, but unfortunately, there is no option to adjust color, language, or font.
18% Privacy
Far too many external servers are contacted, undermining user privacy.

Hugendubel scores 46.7%. The lack of web-optimized images, insufficient caching times, and non-optimal font formats take their toll.

66% Core Web Vitals
The homepage janks significantly during loading, so points are only awarded for loading speed and interactivity.
5% Carbon Footprint
Massive images that are not cached for long enough prevent a good score in this category.
79% Accessibility
In Lighthouse, the website performs average. An external accessibility tool allows adjustments to color and font.
10% Privacy
Multiple external servers and missing security headers prevent higher scores.

Mondadori scores 45.48%. Accessibility issues and significant jank cost it a better ranking.

64% Core Web Vitals
Significant point deductions for the website’s considerable jank.
35% Carbon Footprint
More extensive lazy loading could have saved points. With 1.2 MB of JavaScript, the website loads almost the least amount of data.
39% Accessibility
Moderate Lighthouse scores and no option to adjust color, font, or language.
44% Privacy
Only two external servers are contacted, but one of them is Google (for fonts). Security is limited due to missing security headers.

Amazon scores 44.9%. Once again, it is evident that using the latest technologies alone can only partially salvage the result.

91% Core Web Vitals
Point deductions for jank; otherwise, nothing to criticize.
34% Carbon Footprint
Aggressive caching saves some points on reload. On the first load, there is too much data, particularly JavaScript.
57% Accessibility
Good Lighthouse scores. Language can be adjusted on Amazon, but color cannot.
88% Privacy
As with many other websites, connections to numerous external servers are established.
-5% Content
Point deductions for advertising books from the right-wing conservative to fascist spectrum (e.g., JD Vance, Metaxas).

libris.nl scores 42.6%. Unoptimized images prevent a better result.

99% Core Web Vitals
Minimal deductions for slightly delayed responses during interactions.
0% Carbon Footprint
Unoptimized images and 1.8 MB of JavaScript prevent any points from being scored in this category.
38% Accessibility
Moderate Lighthouse scores and no option to adjust color, font, or language.
33% Privacy
Servers from Microsoft, Google, and Facebook, among others, are contacted without consent.

Thalia scores 46.6%. Security flaws due to missing security headers and high data volume ruin the result.

86% Core Web Vitals
Some point deductions for jank during loading. Interactions with the website could also be faster.
18% Carbon Footprint
Both on the first load and on reload, the website consumes too much data to earn points.
47% Accessibility
Good Lighthouse scores, but unfortunately, there is no option to adjust color, language, or font.
35% Privacy
Multiple external servers and missing security headers prevent higher scores.

Fnac scores 41.47%. Double-downloading large JavaScript files is problematic.

87% Core Web Vitals
The homepage loads too slowly, incurring point deductions.
0% Carbon Footprint
Both on the first load and on reload, the website consumes too much data to earn points. The lack of modern image formats and double-loading of large JavaScript files are to blame.
43% Accessibility
Good Lighthouse scores, but unfortunately, there is no option to adjust color, language, or font.
37% Privacy
Multiple external servers and missing security headers prevent higher scores.

Rahva Raamat scores only 38.3%. One reason: JavaScript from more than ten different servers.

67% Core Web Vitals
Slow response times and jank during page construction lead to point deductions.
0% Carbon Footprint
Over 10 MB of data on the first load is outrageously high. Non-web-optimized images, outdated image formats, and excessive JavaScript cause this figure. On reload, it is significantly better, but still not enough for many points.
56% Accessibility
Good Lighthouse scores, and the website is available in multiple languages.
18% Privacy
Many external servers are contacted, including four from Big Tech.

Empik scores only 36.8%. The point deduction for a full-screen banner is the least of its problems.

36% Core Web Vitals
Point deductions in all subcategories.
0% Carbon Footprint
Here, too, over 10 MB of data is loaded. On reload, it is still over 2.8 MB. Massive WEBP images, apparently losslessly compressed, cause major issues, especially since lazy loading is not used.
37% Accessibility
Moderate Lighthouse scores. Unfortunately, there is also no option to adjust color, language, or font.
53% Privacy
Servers from only three different external providers are used, including Google. Some missing security headers cause further point deductions.
-5% Content
A full-screen banner urging visitors to install an app incurs a point deduction.

The Bulgarian portal Helikon scores only 26%. One reason: JavaScript from more than eight different servers.

62% Core Web Vitals
The page loads relatively quickly but janks during construction and responds too slowly.
0% Carbon Footprint
The ratio of data consumption between the first and repeated loads is as poor as on no other website.
39% Accessibility
Moderate Lighthouse scores. Unfortunately, there is also no option to adjust color, language, or font.
3% Privacy
Too many external servers, including two from Big Tech, are contacted. Additionally, the website falls short on security, as several best practices are not followed.

The Spanish portal El Corte Inglés scores only 25%, taking last place. Even the accessibility tool cannot save it.

7% Core Web Vitals
Too slow, too much jank, and poor response times result in almost no points in this category.
0% Carbon Footprint
This is the third website to send over 10 MB of data over the network for the first load. Even on reload, it is over 4 MB. A major issue is 4.8 MB of JavaScript, about a third of which could have been saved, as many files are double-loaded. Images are cached privately (i.e., individually), which causes data volume on reload. Additionally, lazy loading is inadequate.
84% Accessibility
Best score among all tested bookstores, thanks to an external tool and excellent Lighthouse results.
10% Privacy
Too many external servers, including two from Big Tech, are contacted. There is also room for improvement in security.

Conclusion

Online bookstores also handle visitors’ data far too carelessly. In almost every case, servers from Big Tech companies are contacted without consent.

The only exception is the winner, which refrains from connections to third parties. The Google Tag Manager is hosted on its own server, ensuring that no data is forwarded before consent is given.

Genialokal also excels in other areas, although somewhat less data (particularly JavaScript) would be desirable.

On a positive note, the performance of the homepages stands out overall. Twelve out of fourteen websites managed to score more than 60% of the possible points.

Tagged #WRAPS

Related Posts

6 browser windows containing symbols: a tree, an icon of a heart hovering above two hands, an accessibility icon, a lock, a heart monitor and normal web content
#WRAPS
WRAPS - Non-Government-Organisations (NGOs)

For the third part of the WRAPS series, I looked at the websites of well-known NGOs focusing on environmental and climate protection. The results show that even climate organisations do not have sustainability on their radar when it comes to web development.

6 Browserfenster mit folgenden Symbolen: Baum, T-Shirt mit Blatt drauf, Mensch, Schloss, Pulsmonitor und normaler Inhalt einer Webseite.
#WRAPS
WRAPS - Fair Fashion Online Shops

This edition of WRAPS focuses on Fair Fashion shopping platforms. They are selling fair and green clothing, but are their websites built sustainably?

6 browser windows containing symbols: a tree, the football Bundesliga icon, an accessibility icon, a lock, a heart monitor and normal web content
#WRAPS
WRAPS Bundesliga Edition

For the first episode of my WRAPS series, I reviewed the homepages of the 18 men's Bundesliga football teams. The results are mixed, or to put it positively: there is still a lot of potential for improvement, and an unexpected winner emerged.