Website software...
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iPod - Mac or Windows format?
Next: Fusion + NAT
From: Pd on 3 Jun 2010 04:52 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > 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. Yeah well, I'm doin' the bitchin'. -- Pd
From: Woody on 3 Jun 2010 04:52 Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >> Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> 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. >> >> that sucks, iWeb is a lot worse than I thought then. > > Yeah, but at this moment, I'm kinda stuck with it, unless I can find a > sensible way to migrate. > > The nearest I've come to it is with Flux 2, which I see is also now in > a > new bundle offer. That can actually work with an existing site (once > published to a folder from iWeb). I did trial it a couple of days ago, > but overall it didn't seem too dissimilar to iWeb, and I wasn't sure > how > much better it's code would be either. Would it be worth the workload > to > find the pages were just as slow and glitchy? Obviously not a full conversion if it didn't give you better results, but unless you are really pressed for time, do a couple of pages and look at them in safaris web inspector to see if it is smaller. -- Woody
From: Pd on 3 Jun 2010 04:56 Mark <captain.black(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Speaking of "magical" effects (and website design in general): > <http://www.sarahjanenewbury.com/> Aiieee! A warning might have been polite. NSFE - Not Safe For Eyes. Not so good for those with a weak stomach either. -- Pd
From: Mark on 3 Jun 2010 05:15 On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 09:56:51 +0100, Pd wrote (in article <1jji8wf.eqan4s1k67wykN%peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid>): > Mark <captain.black(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Speaking of "magical" effects (and website design in general): >> <http://www.sarahjanenewbury.com/> > > Aiieee! A warning might have been polite. > > NSFE - Not Safe For Eyes. > > Not so good for those with a weak stomach either. > > Ha! It is rather OTT, isn't it? :-) Cheers ... Mark
From: Andy Hewitt on 3 Jun 2010 05:34
Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-03 08:49:30 +0100, <address_is(a)invalid.invalid> said: > > > Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> Hmm, didn't know that was there, quite handy. > >> > >> It does seem to contradict what we know though. For example, it says > >> the > >> total amount of images is only 7.33KB we already know that one of them > >> is 170KB. How reliable is this then? > > > > Does it? Mine says they are huge and the JavaScript is bigger! > > Yep, clicking on the Size graph for the front page > (Churches/Welcome.html?) shows 17.66K for Documents, 7.75KB for > Stylesheets, 426.84KB for Images, 229.71KB for Scripts, 2.39KB for XHR > (looks like /Churches/feed.xml). Ah yes, silly me, I'd been on the wrong page <blush> 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. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/> |