Website software...
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iPod - Mac or Windows format?
Next: Fusion + NAT
From: Woody on 3 Jun 2010 13:57 Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > > > Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com>: > > > Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > > >> On 2010-06-03 10:34:37 +0100, Andy Hewitt said: > > >> > Hmm, how about that then, total page size now 24.5KB > > >> > > > >> > I *think* the images were large as I'd used a mask to resize and crop > > >> > them. This time I simply used the Inspector panel to change the size, > > >> > which seems to have reduced the size considerably. > > >> > > >> That seems to have done the trick and the page now loads quite a bit > > >> faster. > > > > > > Righto, so it is beginning to look like it's going to be far easier to > > > learn ways around iWeb than migrate. At least it is possible to make the > > > iWeb pages better. > > > > > > Now for the rest of the site :-/ > > > > I think it would be quicker to learn a bit of HTML and CSS... but each > > to their own. > > Not really, I'd need to learn it just for this one site, so I'd just > never get much practice. TBH what I would do in your place is the basic site in iWeb, then hand craft the results to fix the messiest stuff. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Andy Hewitt on 3 Jun 2010 16:24 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: [..] > > Not really, I'd need to learn it just for this one site, so I'd just > > never get much practice. > > TBH what I would do in your place is the basic site in iWeb, then hand > craft the results to fix the messiest stuff. Yes, I have actually done a little of that in the past. However, that opens another can of worms.... iWeb date stamps all the files with a new date everytime you publish the site to a folder, so it's impossible to keep track of changes, and you have to upload the entire site everytime you change one thing. Cyberduck makes a go of syncing iWeb sites with servers, but IME it wasn't very reliable. If you use the internal FTP system, this is handled just fine. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Woody on 3 Jun 2010 16:31 Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > [..] > > > Not really, I'd need to learn it just for this one site, so I'd just > > > never get much practice. > > > > TBH what I would do in your place is the basic site in iWeb, then hand > > craft the results to fix the messiest stuff. > > Yes, I have actually done a little of that in the past. However, that > opens another can of worms.... > > iWeb date stamps all the files with a new date everytime you publish the > site to a folder, so it's impossible to keep track of changes, and you > have to upload the entire site everytime you change one thing. > > Cyberduck makes a go of syncing iWeb sites with servers, but IME it > wasn't very reliable. > > If you use the internal FTP system, this is handled just fine. I just upload the things I changed. But then if you are manually crafting stuff, you know what you changed, and if you are using source control, you can get a list -- Woody Alienrat Design Ltd
From: Andy Hewitt on 3 Jun 2010 17:24 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [..] > > Cyberduck makes a go of syncing iWeb sites with servers, but IME it > > wasn't very reliable. > > > > If you use the internal FTP system, this is handled just fine. > > I just upload the things I changed. > > But then if you are manually crafting stuff, you know what you changed, > and if you are using source control, you can get a list It's a matter of time too. I'm doing this as a favour, and generally it takes but a few minutes to make amendments and upload them. In iWeb, it's a matter of copy/paste some text, click on Publish Changes, job done. FWIW, I only ever started using iWeb for my personal site, but found it rather convenient to use for the church site - it had zero learning curve, no extra cost, and very little effort needed to maintain. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Bruce Horrocks on 3 Jun 2010 18:55
On 02/06/2010 23:51, Andy Hewitt wrote: >> > If I convert it to a jpeg at 25kB I can't tell the difference so it is >> > at least 7 times bigger than it needs to be. When I load the page I can >> > actually see it load, and that is on a broadband. >> > The other graphics are similar. Means the site is really slow at loading >> > for no reason. > OK, fair enough. Not much I can do about that, it starts off as a JPG > (well a Preview image in Aperture anyway), and in the context it should > be much smaller, I agree. Preview in Snow Leopard lets you shrink an image by specifying a bits per inch and the desired size in cm. Bear in mind that your screen isn't actually 72 dpi and so using that default means images come out smaller than expected and it works fine. Default save for Preview is PNG but you can change it to jpeg. Automator has a 'scale images' filter so you can write a script to do files as a batch. -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com) |