Customer is happy with the site, but has mentioned that when loading on a windows based PC it builds in blocks and they can see place holders etc, which he doesn’t like.
It does build in blocks on my mac - but loads quite fast.
I have been told that safari loads the script as it loads the site, where windows based computers load them seperately, which is where the problem lies, is this correct?
He is talking about getting someone else to go through the code and see if they can tidy it up.
Anyone got any advise on what I can do to elevate this.
Regards
Mike
There is not a lot you can do apart from, speed up your clients connection and PC, or alternatively shave page files sizes down or your web page to to make the loading less noticeable to your client.
If you look in Safari and enable the developers menu > Show Network timeline It shows how long and how big your images are.
For example the images loading add up to a whopping 770k of images for the home page. The repeating lines pattern on the background lines.jpg is 414k (This repeating pattern could be made from just a few pixels). Shaving these down would help overall loading times and as a result the staggered page loading effect.
David
On 14 Jan 2009, at 18:09, Mike Thornley wrote:
Customer is happy with the site, but has mentioned that when loading on a windows based PC it builds in blocks and they can see place holders etc, which he doesn’t like.
It does build in blocks on my mac - but loads quite fast.
David Owen
Freeway Friendly Web hosting and Domains ::
There is not a lot you can do apart from, speed up your clients connection and PC, or alternatively shave page files sizes down or your web page to to make the loading less noticeable to your client.
If you look in Safari and enable the developers menu > Show Network timeline It shows how long and how big your images are.
For example the images loading add up to a whopping 770k of images for the home page. The repeating lines pattern on the background lines.jpg is 414k (This repeating pattern could be made from just a few pixels). Shaving these down would help overall loading times and as a result the staggered page loading effect.
David
On 14 Jan 2009, at 18:09, Mike Thornley wrote:
Customer is happy with the site, but has mentioned that when loading on a windows based PC it builds in blocks and they can see place holders etc, which he doesn’t like.
It does build in blocks on my mac - but loads quite fast.
David Owen
Freeway Friendly Web hosting and Domains ::
I would say that a repeating pattern like this only needs one white and one blue bar.
It could even be one pixel high and tile the image.
Dave
On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:24 PM, Sharon Huyshe wrote:
Mike,
There is not a lot you can do apart from, speed up your clients connection and PC, or alternatively shave page files sizes down or your web page to to make the loading less noticeable to your client.
If you look in Safari and enable the developers menu > Show Network timeline It shows how long and how big your images are.
For example the images loading add up to a whopping 770k of images for the home page. The repeating lines pattern on the background lines.jpg is 414k (This repeating pattern could be made from just a few pixels). Shaving these down would help overall loading times and as a result the staggered page loading effect.
David
On 14 Jan 2009, at 18:09, Mike Thornley wrote:
Customer is happy with the site, but has mentioned that when loading on a windows based PC it builds in blocks and they can see place holders etc, which he doesn’t like.
It does build in blocks on my mac - but loads quite fast.
David Owen
Freeway Friendly Web hosting and Domains ::
Beware of over-optimization in tiled images. Too small, and the
browser has to do a lot of math to stitch a very large number of these
together. 25px is a good dimension to work with, in my experience. So
if you’re tiling in both dimensions, 25px square or so is good; if
you’re tiling horizontally, a 25px wide x whatever height “slice” will
perform very well.
Walter
On Jan 14, 2009, at 3:57 PM, studiodave wrote:
I would say that a repeating pattern like this only needs one white
and one blue bar.
It could even be one pixel high and tile the image.
Walter is most certainly more experienced than I am.
So are you saying that 25 wide by 1 high would be OK?
Dave
I’m never afraid of being wrong, I actually welcome it from time to
time.
On Jan 14, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Walter Lee Davis wrote:
Beware of over-optimization in tiled images. Too small, and the
browser has to do a lot of math to stitch a very large number of
these together. 25px is a good dimension to work with, in my
experience. So if you’re tiling in both dimensions, 25px square or
so is good; if you’re tiling horizontally, a 25px wide x whatever
height “slice” will perform very well.
Walter
On Jan 14, 2009, at 3:57 PM, studiodave wrote:
I would say that a repeating pattern like this only needs one white
and one blue bar.
It could even be one pixel high and tile the image.
I’m saying don’t make it smaller in either dimension than 25 px unless
you have a very good reason for doing so. Forcing the browser to
duplicate the image 1000 times to make the vertical dimension fit the
screen is a lot more work than making it duplicate it 40 times.
Walter
On Jan 14, 2009, at 5:12 PM, studiodave wrote:
So are you saying that 25 wide by 1 high would be OK?
Thanks I will make note of that for any future site changes I make.
Dave
On Jan 14, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Walter Lee Davis wrote:
I’m saying don’t make it smaller in either dimension than 25 px
unless you have a very good reason for doing so. Forcing the browser
to duplicate the image 1000 times to make the vertical dimension fit
the screen is a lot more work than making it duplicate it 40 times.
Walter
On Jan 14, 2009, at 5:12 PM, studiodave wrote:
So are you saying that 25 wide by 1 high would be OK?
Hi Mike,
As David mentioned it is always worth keeping a keen eye on the size of your
pages and the resources that make them up. As well as using Safari’s great
network reporting tools you should turn on the ‘Show File Sizes’ option in
Freeway’s site panel. This will instantly alert you if anything is getting too
large.
It might also be worth looking into using HTTP compression on the server to
compress your data before sending it to the browser. In PHP this is super easy
and is simply a couple of lines of code or you can use the WebFast action (see
below). Basically the server will compress the files (HTML, scripts, images
etc) and then ask the browser to expand them before using them. Most of this
happens in real time and you can gain a sizeable increase in speed because of
it.
You can find the free WebFast page action at http://www.freewayactions.com/product.php?id=021
Regards,
Tim.