By linked images, I mean having an image in a directory and giving the path to the image in order to set an objects display or background. I've noticed that since using this method, my page is taking a considerable amount of time to load. So if this is the issue, what would be the alternative?
Thanks
I suggest using the Firebug addon for Firefox.
It breaks the loading time down and explains how long each thing takes to load.
But from your question i would say no, it shouldn't add any extra loading time on.
(I assume you mean loading an image from /index/pictures compared to /index/)
EDIT: Looking at your comments you say "more detailed image"... does this mean a larger file size and if so how large?
You can answer your question yourself by using firebug, We can't without asking a lot more questions since you have left so much needed information out. :/
Regardless of the location of the file, your browser still has to obtain the file. The key word there, is browser.
The data (regardless of type) is downloaded to the client (browser).
Regarding image size, try reducing image size, there are plenty of programs out there (I've found VSO image resizer rather useful in the past)
Remember, slow loading webpages effect SEO!
Related
So I've built a HTML page but I'm getting this weird bug where when I refresh the page, for a split second after refresh I can see the basic font, and afterwards it changes to the one I've applied from Google fonts.
I've checked my code a thousand times and I've no idea what's happening, this is the first time I'm seeing this. It is kinda annoying because it very visible and my elements even change positions a bit, because of the font/size.
Do you have any idea what could be causing this?
a quick search made me find this article: https://medium.com/clio-calliope/making-google-fonts-faster-aadf3c02a36d
you should download your fonts and host them yourself so it renders faster. having google host it for you only makes it slower to load (could be many factors why it takes long to load, maybe its your internet, maybe because there is a lot of text on the page, maybe both.) which causes you to see the regular font for a couple seconds.
I feel like this is a stupid question since I'm pretty sure the spritesheet uses memory for the entire sheet, but I just wanted to make 100% sure and can't find the answer any where. For a html project I wanted to be 'smart' and make as little http requests as possible, so I created a 2048x2048 image that only has about 150x150 not being used, which is actually great since it can allow me to add other images in the future if I need.
The problem is, after purchasing and configuring a server, I was afraid if a lot of people connected at once, that the server would be using more memory for the bigger spritesheet? I only use 10% of the images in the sprite sheet at any given time, and when they change, the previous ones get replaced. So was it stupid of me to make one big file, will it only use extra memory for no reason? Would the rule of thumb here be, use big sprite sheets for images that are always being loaded, and then split the remainder into smaller sprite sheets that are used only at certain times?
To answer your question, yes the entire sheet is loaded into memory.
However, only once.
Each CSS displays only a small portion of the sprite.
In theory: As you move from page to page that one large image is already in the cache and not requested from the server again. Making the next page load that much faster.
There is much more on caching v/s the number of requests v/s the combined sizes of images that would go into a more complete answer.
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'm using several PNG images (via CSS) into a site's template, xhtml and CSS,.
I've kept the pngs as small as possible, and optimised as possible, but when testing it in any browser (Safari, Firefox, IEs) it takes at least 2 seconds to render.
Unfortunately I can't share the code here, but I can say that I've removed all javascript and my html code is fairly small (about 250 lines and no tables) and validates correctly.
I would like to know if the PNGs are the "guilty" part as this is my first site done almost exclusively with pngs (instead of gifs + jpegs) (I won't support IE6 so no need for hacks).
No, they do not take time to render (unless you have a really slow computer). What does take time, is the retrieving of a lot of small files. When you query a web-server for a small file, the time retrieving the file itself does not take long. But to setup the connection etc. etc. adds up.
So, what you should do, is to make what is called a "sprite". Combine all the small images to one large and "cut" them with CSS. How it is done and what it is exactly is explained here:
http://css-tricks.com/css-sprites/
and here
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/04/27/the-mystery-of-css-sprites-techniques-tools-and-tutorials/
If you have many images (doesn't have to be PNGs), then download times will be impacted. By default browsers have a limited number of threads to download content with (IIRC FF has 4), so the more images you have, the longer things will take.
Additionally, if you don't specify dimensions on your images, the browser can only correctly layout the page when an image arrives. It will need to reflow the layout for every such image, which is both expensive and time consuming.
In short, ensure you don't have too many images to download and that the HTML markup has the right dimensions for them.
One workaround for having many images is to use CSS sprites.
Check this link. Read under the "Optimize Images" tab.
Best Practices for Speeding Up Your Web Site
Speed up Images Load Time
I hope this was the thing you needed.
I have a large, hi-def JavaScript-intensive image banner for a site I'm designing. What is everyone's opinion of using iframes so that you incur the load time only once? Is there a CSS alternative to the iframe?
Feel free to preview the site.
It is very much a work in progress.
I should also have mentioned that I would like the banner rotation to keep moving. When the visitor clicks on a link, the banner rotation starts over. It would be nice if the "animation" kept rotating, regardless of the page the user visits.Blockquote
Well, in that case I would strongly recommend not doing that. The only real way of achieving that is to have the actual website content in the iframe, which means that you suddenly have lots of negative sides to the site: not being able to bookmark urls easily due to the address bar not changing; accessibility concerns; etc
I think you'll find that most people won't care that it reloads again. Once a visitor lands on your website, they'll marvel at the wonderful banner immediately, and then will continue to ignore it while they browse your site - until an image they haven't seen appears and distracts them away from your content.
Keep the rotation random enough, and with enough images, and people will stop to look at it from whatever page they're on.
I find the main challenge with iFrame headers is resizing. Since the font in your header is of static size, I don't see a problem with using an iFrame. Although I'm not sure if it's really intensive enough to be worth it.
Well, the browser appears to cache all seven banner images upon the first load, and runs them out from the cache (for each subsequent page) thereafter. I don't think you have a problem :D
Try it out with Firebug's Net monitoring tool in Firefox.
This may work without CSS also, but if you use CSS to load the background and your server is configured correctly, the image should already only be downloaded once.
Usually the browser will request a resource by asking for it only if it has not been modified since the last time it was downloaded. In this case, the only things sent back and forth are the HTTP headers, no content.
If you want to ensure the image is only downloaded once, add an .htacces or an apache2.conf rule to make the image expire a few days into the future so that users will only request it again if their cache is cleared or the content expiration date passes. An .htaccess file is probably too excessive to use in your case, though results may vary.
You could have it load the main page once, then asynchronously load the other elements when needed (ajax). If you did that, an iFrame would not be necessary. Here is an example of loading only the new material.
While using IFrames as a sort of master page/template for your pages might be a good thing, IFrames have a known negative impact to searchability/SEO.
It might also be unnecessary in the first place because once your images are loaded the first time (and with the large high-def images you have on your site, that would be slow no matter what you do) the images are cached by browsers and will not be reloaded until the user clears their cache or does a Ctrl+F5.