Website software...
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iPod - Mac or Windows format?
Next: Fusion + NAT
From: Andy Hewitt on 2 Jun 2010 18:51 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [..] > > The first image on the front page is a 172KB PNG file - huge? > > > Yes, massive. And why a png? Its a photograph, it should be a jpg. In this context, not necessarily. It's not there as a photograph per se, it's there as an image to tart up the page a bit. The photos that are on the gallery pages are indeed JPGs. > 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. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Woody on 2 Jun 2010 18:59 Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > [..] > > > The first image on the front page is a 172KB PNG file - huge? > > > > > > Yes, massive. And why a png? Its a photograph, it should be a jpg. > > In this context, not necessarily. In any context, it is, it physically is. A png is for web graphics, ie, geometric shapes, it is no good for images. > It's not there as a photograph per se, > it's there as an image to tart up the page a bit. It slows the page down a lot. > The photos that are on the gallery pages are indeed JPGs. That is your index page, the first page you see. My first impression on a fast broadband was that it was slow. > > 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. that sucks, iWeb is a lot worse than I thought then. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Chris Ridd on 3 Jun 2010 01:20 On 2010-06-02 23:25:53 +0100, Woody said: > Yes, massive. And why a png? Its a photograph, it should be a jpg. > 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. If Andy wants a good idea of how slowly a site loads, the Safari Web Inspector Resources view is pretty handy. -- Chris
From: D.M. Procida on 3 Jun 2010 02:37 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > I presume the JavaScript is for things like the on-the-fly image > > reflections. > > What's with that whole reflection thing? In five years it will be > regarded with the same level of affection as blinking, crawling marquees > and flaming logos. I think it just distracts from the image displayed, > and is purely "ooh, look what clever graphics programmers we are!" > I blame Steve and his silly iConferenceTable reflections. I think the reflections are pretty bitchin cool. Daniele
From: SM on 3 Jun 2010 03:34
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > I blame Steve and his silly iConferenceTable reflections. > > I think the reflections are pretty bitchin cool. I believe the correct term is 'magical' Stuart -- cut that out to reply |