[USER=5327]@TomLaPointe[/USER] I don't buy all of what you're saying there. If the entire (total aggregate) interface or 3rd party application / plugin confuses the living crap out of a user (there are tons of them; I run into them daily, so do we all) during the first or introductory visit, dealers aren't going to convert very well using them.
The reality, if 3rd party plug-ins aren't tested (A/B, Multivariate and / or Split) within existing dealership website interfaces, dealers are taking risks.
Just as dealers should hold vendors accountable for the usability, numbers and quality of leads (from form submissions mechanisms, chat & video chat tools, text tools, etc.), a good idea would be for dealers to ask of their vendors (and although I hear you in reference to asynchronous JS loading), "Hey, are you testing how your code loads on my site? Are you worried about bogging down the load speed of the entire site? Show me some proof heat maps and session playbacks to show me if users are clicking your tool(s), when, where and how? Are the mechanisms placed in the correct location(s)?", etc. I just find the implementation of these tools all too generic.
The spread of JavaScript on web pages is directly linked to an explosion in the weight of web content. Today the average webpage is 13 times heavier than it was in 2002, and nearly 20% of that average page is composed of JavaScript. The language offers the ability to collect important info and provide an engaging user experience, but is too often implemented with little regard for performance cost.
As far as asynchronously loaded JavaScript (yes, clearly a better idea), but you can’t guarantee the order in which those types of files are executed. This is because they’re executed as soon as they’re loaded – not necessarily the order in which they appear on the page. This is important if any of those files depend on each other – if they do, don’t use async. I suppose it's a case by case basis and if your team is using async correctly, good on you, that's smart.
