Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Tue 23/04/24 10:06:57 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 27690.1.1

Subject: Re: Increased WWF load/render speed!

Date: Mon 26/02/07 03:32:32 GMT

Name: Desert Hawk

Email:

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: (you can change amount)

I click the X as soon as the message board loads. Sometimes I have to click more than once. That way I can start reading messages without having to wait for the banners to load.

In reply to Message (27690.1)

Re: Increased WWF load/render speed!

By MG - Mon 26/02/07 00:40:40 GMT

Website:

It is probably hard for those of you who have had broadband for years to realize that there are still many on dial up internet connection.The pics get bigger and with higher resolution they can take a long time to download. On dial up some are nearly impossible to open.Not to mention videos ..the new way to sell wetlook online via videos cannot even be considered by dial up users.

As favourite sites like this one get more and more into flashy banners it won't be long until it also will be inaccessable to dial up users.

In reply to Message (27690)

Increased WWF load/render speed!

By Telcontar - mrnemesis@ntlworld.com Sun 25/02/07 23:31:00 GMT

Website:

At the top of the WWF Active Topics page is a grid of ad banners for various sites. Each one is stored on a different server, none of them are pre-scaled and many aren't optimised, period.

Right now, at the bottom, I see these two:

Into the Water dedicated 150x30 banner, 2 k.

Jeans and Pants 468x60 banner -- shrunk by the HTML -- 34 k!

Think about the modem load time for 34 k of data (8 seconds at 4 k/sec) to load a tiny banner that could be as low as 2 k (0.5 sec) if it was scaled and optimised at the source.

Worse, by placing every image on a different server, you can't take any advantage of pipelining or keep-alive. Even requests to ask "has this image changed?" (standard If-Modified-Since conditional GET) require a separate three-way handshake to a new server and can't be chained via keep-alive.

Finally, the browser has to reduce every image to fit into all the slots.

This has to be the slowest-loading site I've ever seen, mostly from waiting for all the HTML to come in, but for people who surf in privacy mode (clear cache on exit), on dial-up etc, you could do a lot to help them by cleaning up the banner situation.

Ideally, you'd host them all on your own site to reduce the number of TCP connections and DNS lookups needed, but even if not, you could still improve it by ensuring that the various sites supply sensible images, scaled and cropped to fit.

The WetInRed site hosted its own copies of all the banners for the Links page, with this same flaw. It came to 500 k of banner images! (Imagine that on a modem ...) From scaling and roughly optimising them all I took 100 k or more off the total. 400 k is still a lot, but these are larger banners on Steve's site -- 468 px wide generally. Personally I prefer plain text for links in the first place, but maybe those on his page need reducing also? With reduced size comes reduced clarity and reduced impact ... Not sure what to do about that one.

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: (you can change amount)