On my page, I'm populating quite a few images, they aren't SUPER high resolution, but I aggregate the images, so I don't have the stored in smaller sizes. When I start putting lots on the page, it gets sluggish. Is there something I can do to fix this? Like some kind of on-the-fly image compression?
Have you looked into techniques of lazy-loading your images? http://www.appelsiini.net/projects/lazyload
Looks like the problem happened because you were using the full-res pictures to display thumbnails. This is a performance nightmare! You might benefit from reading:
http://ask-leo.com/why_do_some_website_pictures_display_so_slowly.html
You really need to make thumbs of these images to make it quicker. It makes no sense to download all high-res images at the same time.
Related
Currently for my webpage's banner, I'm using http://workshop.rs/projects/coin-slider/ to have 4 images sliding. On the office's slower computers the coin slider seems to be very laggy.
My question is, would animating the 4 images into a single GIF file be better/faster? Are there better options to create a 4-image-moving banner?
Try using a lightweight image gallery, I found some here. The coin slider is lightweight 8KB but there are ones even lighter 2KB or so.
You could technically use a GIF but I think there are some mobile compatibility issues, you can also have better functionality with javascript/jQuery galleries.
As far as slow computers go there isn't much you can do about that, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just do some extra research on how to minimise files and deliver a faster site.
Gif is not a wise alternet for sliders..you could reduce the quality of your Images and compress them..or if you are using large images and resizing them in slider, you can re size them with any image alteration tool. This will reduce image size too.
And I hope you are not giving images path direct internet links, cause this will automatically increase the loading time.
I have been tasked with optimizing a marketing landing page for speed. It already does really well, but the problem is its very graphic heavy.
The entire thing I would guestimate is 30+ pages long all on one page (It must be like this, and everything must be images due to conversion reasons).
Here's what I've done so far but I'm not sure if there's something else I'm missing
I re-compressed over a 140 jpg's on the page to slightly smaller sizes
I played around with sprites but most of the images are all large (like entire testimonial boxes that are 600px wide). The sprite images ended up being like 2mb. That page actually took longer to load for some reason (by almost 2s) so I took them off
The MOST important thing is that everything immediately at the top loads as fast as humanly possible and before anything else so that the sale isn't lost by someone starting at a bunch of images loading out of order. I used some preaching images with this method: http://perishablepress.com/press/2009/01/18/css-image-caching/ - It did seem to work quite well on the smaller images, but when I add the background (which is very graphic intensive) everything seems to slow down at once, like its trying to do a certain number (5?) of images at a time. Ideally I'd love to group the first 4 smaller images being pre-cached, and then follow it up with focusing all bandwidth on the background, then the rest of the entire page in standard order..
Google Page Speed score is 90/100. the only thing its concerned about is unused styles but that I'm not really concerned about because its about 2kb total... the overhead from the 7mb of images is way more important.
I have the option to use a CDN for the images but I'm not sure how I'd go about doing this or if it would actually help?
I feel I've done all I can but then again I could totally be missing something...
A CDN would definitely help. And with 140 pictures, I hope it
contains more than just server. Just link directly to the IP of
the servers, to avoid unnecessary DNS lookup.
Minimize HTTP requests. You mention that you've been experimenting
with sprites. I still believe sprites to be the way to go, but you
might not want to create just one, huge image. If you have 140
images, you should probably have about 10 sprites.
Make sure that you have set headers to make the client cache all
content. Remember ETags.
Gzip/compress content for browsers that allow it.
If the source code is lengthy, make sure to flush the buffer early.
Consider lazily loading images below the fold? There are a number of javascript plugins to accomplish this
scrolling pagination + combining images as sprites on a per-page basis.
I am a beginning programmer and I really want to have good habits and practices. I have yet to slice up a PSD and code it. Is this a bad practice? I have heard it creates bad code that had to be fixed anyway so why do it? I want to create clean code even if it takes longer. Just wondering if it is as bad as I have heard. Are there advantages to doing it this way? Do I need to learn this skill to make good sites? Thanks.
If your images are very large, then sometimes slicing them into pieces and generating the right HTML that lines up all the pieces can be a better user experience. These days, this seems to matter more for those on very slow links (like dial-up) or very poor links (lots of errors) and less for those on typical internet links unless the images are very large.
Overall, slicing images is more overhead for the browser (more HTML, more separate image request for both client and server) so it's only beneficial when specifically needed to solve a problem. I would not do it by default unless you had a specific problem you were trying to solve with the image slicing.
Your background image shouldn't be a very complex image and if it is try to make it as optimized as possible so the load time is efficient for slower downloads. As for slicing I wouldn't use it all that often as it does cause alot of browser requests, again be sure all are optimized so the download time is very minor. Something to look into is using sprites (I know it wasn't the question) these are very useful for images that don't really matter to SEO of the site (buttons, arrows, bullets, etc. The big thing anymore is download speed you want to keep the images cached, optimized and as minimal bandwidth as possible. If your page takes too long to load then your users will leave, that should drive your image create more than best-practices.
i have seen people using these kind of images then positioning them so that they are single buttons, you know what i mean
Why this is done so ?
What are the benefits ?
It spares the browser from issuing lots of little HTTP requests, which slow down page-loads. It also tends to slightly reduce the resource consumption on the browser — which can matter a lot on constrained devices — and is friendlier to constrained caches, because one large image is usually quite a bit smaller than the sum of individual images.
It's called 'css sprites' and it's done because of optimalizations.
Like this, the browser only need to load a single (larger) image instead of a lot of small images. This improves the speed of the website.
The single image is usually smaller in size compared to the small images separated.
On a website I'm creating, I have about 100 various thumbnails (64x64) that get displayed at different times. On some pages, only 5-15 thumbnails may be displayed. On others, all 100 are loaded.
I'm considering using a technique like CSS sprites to display the images. That is, rather than have image tags for each thumb, do something like:
<span class=thumb1"></span>
And then use CSS to take a slice of one single image with all the thumbs stitched together. That is, one image with all 100 thumbs (in this scenario, a 640x640 image).
My questions:
Is this a good idea?
If yes,
should I do it on all pages the
images occur, or only on the pages
with all the images?
Is there
another technique other than sprites
that may be better than simply
including the images with img tags?
If you think that an ordinary user would visit at least two different pages with these thumbnails than my opinion is that using sprites would really be a good idea!
I would in fact make a single big image with all the thumbnails and then use it in all the pages!
Why?
Fewer http requests (from 100 to 1)! And this is one of the most important thing about web site optimizations (read here from Yahoo Performance Team speed optimization rules )
This way users will download the whole image only the first time and then they will get a super quick loading of that images in all the following pages
The most famous websites on the internet already do that! See sprites used in Yahoo, Amazon or Youtube pages.
You can add other UI or layout images to your sprite
Optimize the resulting PNG:
After you have generated your sprite, if a PNG, you can optimize the PNG even more using this tool: http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/09/18/squishing-the-last-drops-from-your-pngs/
When not to use sprites:
When part of the images in the sprite change frequently
In this specific case: when the majority of users would need less than the (about) 10% of the images
I'm not quite sure what you mean with "sprites", but this is what I think you mean: instead of 100 images seperately, you create 1 image, with a 10x10 raster. Each coordinate (x,y) contains one of the images you like to show.
Now, if you display an image, you use CSS to set background-location: i.e. x * -64px and y * -64px, perhaps using JavaScript to calculate the x and y for each image-span, or Server-Side scripting to print out a dynamic CSS.
Yes, this is a good idea: it reduces load time, since one only has to download one big image, instead of hundreds of smaller ones.
It depends. If you have caching-abilities for a page, then you can "stitch" all thumbnails into one image file. If you have a very dynamic webpage, then it's quite harsh to build this stitched image every time the thumbnales are updated.
Not sure, if this is what you ment with "sprites", then no, if you ment something else with "sprites", then yes: this answer is an example of one.
It is a good idea if
Speed matters
You don't care about accessibility (screen readers reading the ALT text of an image, etc, all that is gone when you use sprites)
You don't care that your thumbnails are not going to be printed by default in any browser
You can do it without it becoming a maintenance nightmare (which image was on position 461 again?)
As to your second question, it is probably advisable to put all sprites into one or very few container images to minimize loading times.