Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Images take a long time to load?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Images take a long time to load?

    Hi there,

    I wonder if anyone could help me please. I am currently designing a website as a favour for a friend. It's my first time using HTML, Dreamweaver etc. So please bear with me...

    The site is: www.afrotv.co.uk

    My problem is that the images take a long time to load (even on my broadband connection).

    The size of the image folder is 716kb for the whole site.

    Is there anyway i could reduce the time to load these images, or have I just made a complete mess of the design phase and made my images too big?

    Hope someone can help.

    Thanks a lot.

    Best regards,


    Rich Walker.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    12,164
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts

    Default

    You can make the images smaller (by compressing them more).
    Depending on your server, it might be slow so you could use a faster server to do it, but that's obviously a hassle.
    It might be your computer if your cache is close to full or system runs slowly. Try clearing your cache and running less at once.
    Aside from that, no, there is no way to transfer data faster. Sorry.
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| espa˝ol | Deutsch | italiano | portuguŕs | catalÓ | un peu de franšais | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,627
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 107 Times in 107 Posts

    Default

    if you are dealing lot of images it is obvious that it will take some time to complete the image loading.

    Since you are using the jpg images i don't think it can be compressed again already its compressed.

    If you can avoid the unnecessary usage of images in your site (in your site you've used the spacer image extensively).

    Why don't you try to use a table less layout rather than table based layout.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    12,164
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts

    Default

    JPGs can be recompressed. The format allows for 1-100% quality. (0 might be allowed; not sure). Anything about 90 is almost never distinguishable from 100, and usually 30 looks just fine.
    Saving the JPGs at lower quality can help this.
    Converting them in some cases might help as well, if you happen to have one image that has just a few colors, for example, a GIF would do well.


    Tables can be ok, but be creative in the use of images.... you can use background colors and other means to create a similar effect while not slowing down the page loading.
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| espa˝ol | Deutsch | italiano | portuguŕs | catalÓ | un peu de franšais | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,627
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 107 Times in 107 Posts

    Default

    hi djr33

    thanks for the information

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    12,164
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts

    Default

    Sure.

    Also note that compressing something twice will end in lower quality than doing so once. Each time you compress something (anything) it loses some information. Doing so twice means losing information twice.
    For example, an image compressed to 30% would be better than the same image compressed to 70% then to 30%.
    The effect won't be awful, though, if you must recompress.
    If possible, however, use the original full quality image to create the smaller version from.
    This is a huge reason to save the original full quality version of any images you create.
    The same theory applies to modifying a JPG and resaving it. In doing so, you also get generation loss. (Generation loss is the term used for describing the loss of info per save.)
    If you can, change the original and create a new JPG from that, rather than recompressing the already compressed JPG copy.
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| espa˝ol | Deutsch | italiano | portuguŕs | catalÓ | un peu de franšais | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,627
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 107 Times in 107 Posts

    Default

    Thanks a lot for the image compression information. It was really worthy

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hi guys,

    Thanks SO much for all your helpful replies!

    Is there anyway i can compress my jpeg's without having to re-splice everything in fireworks and link it all up again?

    What do you think to the general aesthetics of the site?

    The server that the site uses is based in Africa, would this make a difference to the loading time?

    Thanks again for all your help, it is greatly appreciated.

    Cheers,


    Rich.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,627
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 107 Times in 107 Posts

    Default

    I've got some tools for compressing jpg image while searching through net. Please check out this.

    Hope you can find something useful here

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    12,164
    Thanks
    265
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts

    Default

    From my VERY basic understanding of servers and such.... this is basically how it works:
    1. your computer makes a request for data from a server.
    2. that request is sent up through many levels:
    --ISP (internet service provider)
    --local central station
    --general station
    3. eventually it hits the top, which, in this case, would likely be a US national server of some sort.
    4. the request is transfered to africa
    5. the request goes back down to the server through the same sort of path it went up.
    I *think* this is right, just based on casual observations I've made.

    I did a test of the datarate for downloading from a company that tests from different locations in the US.
    The San Francisco server was more than twice as fast (as I'm very close to SF) than the server in New York.

    So... yes, location does matter.

    Have the server as close to [the majority of] the page's viewers as possible. (This is a big thing to change, so might not work out, which is understandable.)
    This may be part or all of the reason the images are slow.... I'm not sure.
    I'd suggest testing on different computers from different places to get a general idea of how it works before making big decisions/conclusions.


    As for slicing an image....
    1. Save the original
    2. You need only replace the specific parts that are change... just those chunks of the image.
    3. With ImageReady, it's integration with Photoshop is nice so that you CAN save the slices and use the original.
    4. Not sure about Fireworks. There is hopefully a similar answer.

    Remember, hit Save, not save as or save for web... that will save the ORIGINAL which you can edit later. Save as and save for web are to output [only] a copy to the web. Don't delete the original. And always edit the original.
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| espa˝ol | Deutsch | italiano | portuguŕs | catalÓ | un peu de franšais | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •