Related
I am implementing a very simple download speed tester.
To do that, I simply download a large image file from the web and see if it's received within a reasonable time.
I'm using the following file because I saw that in a source code somewhere:
https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/08/30/01/05/milky-way-2695569_1280.jpg
However, I am afraid that the image might go away some time.
Which image could I use to make sure it will always be there?
Is there perhaps an image that a foundation or so has created especially for such a purpose and who promises that it will be there for a long time?
I was even thinking about downloading a really popular js file because I was thinking that it will be there for a long time like https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.0.min.js, but I am not sure about this either.
How could I handle this task in the most reliable way?
Thank you!
I would recommend Wikimedia commons.
Reasons:
Wikimedia has a very strict guideline that allows only high quality uploads which of course are higher in size.
It's free and persistent (It perisist for years )
You can go with videos for even bigger sizes.
For images it's https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images
I'm testing a website speed using PageSpeed Insights tool.
In the result page, one of the warnings suggested me to reduce byte size of css, html and js files.
At the first I tried to remove comments, but nothing changed.
How can I do that?
Should I remove spaces and tabs?
It seems to be a very long operation, worth it?
The action of removing spaces, tabs and useless chars is called minify.
You don't need to do that, there are a lot of services that can minimize files for you.
for example:
http://www.willpeavy.com/minifier/
Be care if you have jquery code: sometimes it removes spaces in wrong place.
You have two things to do to reduce page size:
Minify CSS & JS files
In server side, if you are running your website via Apache, you can install APC, for page cahing. You'll have better parformances
APC
In addition to CSS minifier/prettifier tools above, I recommend using proCSSor for optimizing CSS files. It offers variety of advanced options.
Never found those tools to be much use beyond giving some tips for what might be slowing it down. Minifying is unlikely to achieve much. If you want to speed up your site, save the page and see what the largest files are. Generally they will be the image files rather than the code, and see if you can reduce these.
Also, try and test it on two servers - is your host slow?
If your html file is massive, that suggests a problem with the site's structure - it is rare that a page needs to be large.
Finally, large javascript files are most likely to be things like jquery. If Google hosts these, then use the hosted version. That way, it will probably be already in a user's cache and not impact on your loading time.
EDIT, after further testing and incorporating the issues discussed in the comments below:
PageSpeed Insights is an utterly amateurish tool, and there are much more effective ways to speed up the rendering time than minifying the codes.
PageSpeed Insights is an utterly amateurish tool, that as a matter of standard advises to reduce HTML, CSS and JS file sizes, if not minified. A much, much better tool is Pingdom Website Speed Test. That compares rendering speed to the average of the sites it is asked to test, and gives the download times of the site's components.
Just test www.gezondezorg.org on both, and see the enormous difference in test results. At which the Google tool is dead wrong. It advises to reduce the CSS and JS files, while its own figures (click the respective headers) show that doing so will reduce their sizes with 3.8 and 7.9 kB, respectively. That comes down to less than 1 millisecond download time difference! (1 millisecond = 1/1000 of a second; presumed broadband internet).
Also, it says that I did do a good thing: enable caching. That is BS as well, because my .htaccess file tells browsers to check for newly updated files at every visit, and refresh cached files whenever updated. Tests confirm that all browsers heed that command.
Furthermore, that site is not intended to be viewed on mobile phones. There is just way too much text on it for that. Nevertheless, PageSpeed Insights opens default with the results of testing against mobile-phone criteria.
More effective ways to speed up the rendering
So, minifying hardly does anything to speed up the rendering time. What does do that is the following:
Put your CSS codes and Javascripts as much as possible in one file each. That saves browser-to-server (BTS) requests. (Do keep in mind that quite a number of Javascripts need the DOM to be fully loaded first, so in practice it comes down to putting the scripts as much as possible in 2 files: a pre- and a post-body file.)
Optimize large images for the web. Photoshop and the likes even have a special function for that, reducing the file size while keeping the quality good enough for use on the web.
In case of images that serve as full-size background for containers: use image sprites. That saves BTS requests as well.
Code the HTML and JS files so that there is no rendering dependency on files from external domains, such as from Twitter, Facebook, Google Analytics, advertisement agencies, etc.
Make sure to get a web-host that will respond swiftly, has a sufficient processing capacity, and has a(n almost) 100% up-time.
Use vanilla/native JS as much as possible. Use jQuery or other libraries only for tasks that would otherwise be too difficult or too time-consuming. jQuery not only is an extra file to download, it is also processed slower than native JS.
Lastly, you should realize that:
having the server minify the codes on the fly generally results in a much slower response from the server;
minifying a code makes it unreadable;
de-minifying tools are notorious for their poor performance.
Minifying resources refers to eliminating unnecessary bytes, such as extra spaces, line breaks, and indentation. Compacting HTML, CSS, and JavaScript can speed up downloading, parsing, and execution time. In addition, for CSS and JavaScript, it is possible to further reduce the file size by renaming variable names as long as the HTML is updated appropriately to ensure the selectors continue working.
You can find plenty of online tools for this purpose, a few of them are below.
HTML Minify
CSS Minify
JS Minify
good luck!
Does anyone know if there is anything around that can take an uploaded font file and automatically convert it for use as a web font?
I know there are legal issues around this, but places like Font Squirrel seem to manage, I have a private network of users and I'd really like to provide them with the opportunity to upload the fonts they use for their brand and the advice they need to use those fonts legally on line.
Online services like Font Squirrel are not really an option because my users are non-tech users and won't understand that service- they just can't understand why they cant use the fonts they want, when they can use them in Word documents, pdf's and images etc. They just want to use them basically. What I can do is automate the upload and creation and payment where necessary, and from the users point of view they can just upload the font they want to use, get billed for it and start using it.
So yeah does anyone know of anything PHP that would help me with that?
Thanks in advance
You seem to be looking for this. That’s a simple on-the-fly OTF to WOFF converter which does not require registration.
One business goal requires that I make a form on screen that's pixel-perfect. If a user prints this form, it will exactly match the US Government Printing Office version of the form; the printer will produce a (reasonably) scannable copy of this document. The previous solution is PDF, which will only work to a certain point for us.
I'm leaning towards HTML/CSS, and would like suggestions on tools to assist that.
For tools, PixelPerfect in Firefox seems a good start. The target platform for this is (drum roll) IE6, if it helps. The document looks like this.
If HTML/CSS is a complete no-go, Adobe Flex is my next choice.
If pixel perfect printing is the goal, and not even PDF will get you there, you can pretty much give up straight away on printing from the browser. There are waaaay too many variables when rendering on the client side: from different browsers (IE6? Good luck!) to different fonts, to user settings, to A4 vs Letter size paper.
Could I ask why PDF doesn't suit?
I agree that pixel-perfect layouts are very, very hard to achieve with html/css, particularly with forms. However, I think pdfs can recieve input from external web forms, or have textfields that when filled out will print.
Flex outputting to pdf would be a good idea, but I don't think using flex as an rendering engine will help too much with this.
Another option would be to make the pdf and use a server-side langage to customize it with fields from a prior webform, and output the result. (Can easily be done with ruby/django/php, there are some good pdf libraries out there.)
First, abandon pixels. What you're looking for is a print stylesheet, with everything specified using physical units (cm/inches), font size in pt, etc. What is displayed on the screen, in what font size, and whether it is pixel-perfect or not doesn't seem relevant to your requirement of producing a scannable copy.
The question is now, is IE6 support for physical units and print stylesheets complete enough for that? Given my experience with making print stylesheets for clients, where IE would simply crash during the print process if you looked at it wrong, I'd say not too likely -- not with the complexity of the forms you're dealing with.
If you're worried about the renderer (IE, Acrobat, etc.) screwing up, you could always render the form on the server, and just serve an image to the user.
Dean, check out Prince. Bert Bos and Håkon Wium Lie used it for production of their book on CSS. They explain a bit about it in an A List Apart article.
Although I've done programming, I'm not a programmer. I've recently agreed to coordinate getting a Website up for a club. The resources are--me, who has done Web content maintenance (putting content into HTML and ColdFusion templates via a gatekeeper to the site itself; doing simple HTML and XML coding); a serious Web developer who does database programming, ColdFusion, etc., and talks way over the heads of the rest of us; two designers who use Dreamweaver; the guy who created the original (and now badly broken) site in Front Page and wants to use Expression Web; and assorted other club members who are even less technically inclined.
What we need up first is some text and graphics (a gorgeous design has been created in Dreamweaver), some links (including to existing PDF newsletters for download), and maybe hooking up an existing Blogspot blog. Later (or earlier if it's not hard), we may add mouseover menus to the links, a gallery, a calendar, a few Mapquest hotlinks, and so on.
My question--First, is there any real problem with sticking with HTML and jpegs for the initial site? Second, for the "later" part of the site development, what's the simplest we can go with? Third, are there costs in doing this the simple way that will make us regret it down the road? Also, is there a good site/resource where I can learn more about this from a newbie perspective?
If you don't require any dynamic content, heck, if you don't plan on editing the content more than once a week, I'd say stick to basic HTML.
Later, you'd probably want a basic, no-fuss and easily installable CMS. The brand really depends on the platform (most likely PHP/Rails/ASP), but most of them can be found by typing " CMS" into Google. Try prefixing it with "free" or "open source" if you want.
I'm pretty sure you can do all this for absolutely free. Most PHP and Ruby CMS's are free and web hosting is free/extremely cheap if you're not demanding.
And last/best tip: Find someone who has done this before, preferably more than once. He'll probably set you up so you never have to look at anything more complicated than a WYSIWYG editor.
Plain old HTML is fine, just as long as you don't use tags like blink and marquee.
I personally love tools like CityDesk.
And I'm not just plugging Joel. (There are others out there in this class I'm sure.) The point is they make making a static website very easy:
The structure is just a filesystem structure
pages have templates to consolidate formatting
all resources are contained in one file
easy and fast Preview and Publish functions
For a dynamic collaborative site, I would just install one of many open source CMSs available on shared hosting sites.
If you're familiar with html/javascript basics I'd look into a CMS - wordpress, drupal, joomla, nuke, etc. All of these are free. Very often your web hosting company will install one of these by default which takes all of the hard part out of your hands. Next is just learning to customize the system and there's tons of docs out there for any of those systems.
All that being said there is noting wrong with good old fashioned html.
In addition to some of the great content management systems already mentioned, consider cms made simple.
It makes it very easy to turn a static site into a content managed site (which sounds like exactly what you might need to do in the future), and the admin area is very easy to use. Our clients have found it much simpler to use than the likes of Joomla.
It's also free and open source.
Good luck!
There's no reason to not go with plain old HTML and JPGs if you don't know any server side scripting languages. Also, once you want to get more advanced, most cheap hosting services have tools that can be installed with one click, and provide things like blogs, photo galleries, bulletin boards (PHPBB), and even content management tools like Joomla.
I had the same problem myself, I was just looking for something really easy to smash together a website quickly. First I went with just plain old HTML, but then I realised a simple CMS would be better.
I went for Wordpress. Wordpress is mostly known as a blogging platform, but in my opinion it is really great as a deadly simple CMS as well.
why not simply use Google pages?
Here is an example of a website I did, takes about 2 hours, easy to maintain (not that I do (-: ) and FREE.
I think that suggesting you mess with HTML for what you need is crazy!
Plain HTML is great, gives you the most control. If you want to make updating a bit easier though, you could use SSI. Most servers have this enabled. It basically let's you attach one file to many pages.
For example, you could have your menu in navigation.html and every page would include this file. That way you wouldn't have to update this one file on every page each time you need to update.
<!--#include virtual="navigation.html" -->
I agree with the other commenters that a CMS might be useful to you, however as I see it, probably a solution like Webby might do it for you. It generates plain HTML pages based on Templates. Think about it as a "webpage preprocessor" which outputs plain HTML files. It has most of the advantages of using a server-based CMS, but without a lot of load on the server, and making it easy for you to change stuff on any of the templates you might use.
It's fine
Rails (or purchase / use a CMS)
Not unless you start becoming crazy-popular
It really depends on what you go with for 2. Rails has a plethora of tutorials on the net and any product you go with will have its own community etc.
To be perfectly honest though, if the dynamic part is someone elses blog and you move the gallery out into flikr you may find that you can actually live with large parts of it being static HTML for a very long time.
If a to Implement a website With User Profiles/Logins, Extensions, Gallery's etc s a Newbi then a CMS like Joomla, Etc are good , but Else if you presently have only Static Content then Its good to go with Good Old HTML, About JPEG , I though Presently Its better to use PNG or GIF as its Less Bulky.
Also About you Query About Shifting to Server Scripts , When you have Database Driven Material or When you have Other Things that Require Advanced Prog Languages , Just use PHP Scripts inside PHP , and Rename teh File as a PHP, Thats IT, No Loss to you HTML Data.....
Do Go Ahead and Launch you Site ......
Dude, you're talking about HTML, obviously you'll be styling your content with CSS. Wait till you run into IE issues and god forbid your client wants ie6 compatibility.
Go with the HTML for now, I'm sure you guys will hack it through. Our prayers are with you.
Personally, I'd never use JPEG images on a website, mainly because of three reasons:
JPEGs often contains artifacts.
Quality is often proportional
with filesize.
Does not support
alpha transparency.
That said, I'd recommend you to use PNGs for images since it's lossless and a 24-bit palette (meaning full colors + alpha transparency). The only quirk is that IE6 and below does not support native alpha for PNGs, however this could be resolved by running a javascript which would fix this issue.
As for designing a website, there's both pros and cons for this. I suggest you read through:
37 Signal's Why We Skip Photoshop
Jeff Croft's Why We Don't Skip Photoshop
As for newbie resources, I'd recommend you flip through the pages at W3 Schools.