Simple Site needs Simple Review :o)

[redoakranch]

Just did a bit of updating, page polishing (I hope), and basic cobweb clearing. I'm asking now for extra eyes to catch any finer points I missed (like typos...erk) and general feedback on style and navigation. Is it easy on the eyes? Easy to get around? Does it makes sense, as much as a website about model horses can? Is it at least mildly entertaining? )

http://redoakranch.x10host.com/

It's a very simple site; that's about all my sad skillz permit. Giving me a BIT of a break for that, please feel free to instruct me where I need it most; I am here to learn and I suspect, as a friend of mine would say, that I am probably the Stupid Person in this room. ;o)

-DB

 

[lylex10h]

Use a program such as FileOptimizer or web service such as Kraken.io to losslessly (without loss) compress your images.
For example on http://redoakranch.x10host.com/outdoor_photos.html I was able to compress http://redoakranch.x10host.com/photos/outdoor/lady_vader_1a.jpg from 261,318 bytes to 221,743 bytes (a savings of about 38.6 kB).

While this may not seem like much, it adds up when there are multiple images per page. The less resources your site uses, the faster it will load and other users pages *may* load faster as a result of your account/site using less resources.

 

[redoakranch]

Thank you. The site is image intensive by design, so suggestions on how I can keep the pics from performing like sea anchors is much appreciated. )

 

[essellar]

Ooh, I can go you one (or two) better. Using a program called JPEGmini, I can get lady_vader_1a.jpg down to 62,264 bytes with no visible loss in quality. An interesting thing about EXIF/JFIF/JPEG files is that each little 8x8-pixel block of an image can be compressed differently, and programs that work like JPEGmini take advantage of that. Parts of the image that have a lot of detail are compressed as little as possible, but anything that can be squashed hard without visible damage are stomped unmercifully. You put in a highest/superfine-qulity JPEG and it hands you back something that looks exactly the same, but with a file size that's about the same as a 70% (a 9 in Photoshop). This one-quarter of the original size thing is pretty typical; some files will compress more, others less, but it'll average out at about 1/4 of the size.

The free/trial version limits you to 20 images/day if I recall correctly, but doesn't have a time limit - and there are other programs now that do pretty much the same thing, so it's not like I'm trying to sell you something. It's just something I've used for my own work that I consider a minor miracle.

 

[jensen]

Here's the download link (if you buy it, it's USD 29.00
-> http://www.jpegmini.com/app

Here's an online service
-> http://optimizilla.com
You must have a really good eye to notice the differences.
See attached image at 49,152 at 90% quality using optimizilla
(If we choose 100% quality it would be 134k)

i've used paint.net but cannot say that the images are just as sharp but it gets the job done.

 

[jensen]

Here's another online service https://compressor.io

Check it out. It's gone down to 35.8k but you don't get to choose what quality you want.
Just upload, and they compress it, and you download the file.

Would it matter a lot if we use progressive JPEGs instead of static JPEGs ?

 

[essellar]

Here's another online service https://compressor.io

Check it out. It's gone down to 35.8k but you don't get to choose what quality you want.
Just upload, and they compress it, and you download the file.

Would it matter a lot if we use progressive JPEGs instead of static JPEGs ?

That's thrown significant brightness, colour and contrast shifts into the picture, to the point of making it a completely different image. It still gets the gist across, sure, and that would be fine if the picture is just a "fact", if you will. But if you think of the picture and all of the decisions made shooting and editing it as artistic content, anything the compression utility does that amounts to making different decisions you didn't make is unacceptable.

The thing about JPEGmini is that it doesn't matter how good your eyes are, you actually need to do a diff (an image subtraction, or a difference blend) to detect any difference at all between the optimized image and the original, and even then it's just one or two levels, usually in a single colour channel, in scattered pixels in "smooth" areas with no detail. The most detailed areas are completely unchanged (they retain the same compression using the same quantization tables and coefficients you started with). Stuff that could haave been compressed a little bit more gets compressed a little bit more; things that could have been highly compressed (globally) if it weren't for that annoying thing that's actually in focus and full of detail that was the whole point of taking the picture in the first place get thoroughly smushed. The only way it's going to recompress the entire image is if there's really no fine detail in the image at all and you could have safely used higher compression/lower quality to begin with. The big bonus is that you don't have to try the image at different compression ratios to see what'll happen; you save at best quality and let the optimizer pick the right compression based on what's actually in the image.

As for progressive, that's mostly about the user's perception, and it made a big difference in the dial-up days. Basically, it's a way of letting the user see something before the image downloads - assuming the application they're using to view the image (browser or what have you) does progressive rendering rather than waiting for a full download before rendering anything. It won't help page weight, but it can help the page seem faster for users with slow/bad connections.

 

[jensen]

Thank you, essellar. I learn something new again.