Viewing Viability of large website
Viability of large website
|
User: Tim S. 11 years ago
|
|
|
I'm going to break this question into two posts so that I can get to the heart of the matter and also keep from inventing the new cure for insomnia. I have currently have a website for my cabinetshop with a gazillion large format high resolution pictures. It contains about thirty kitchens each with approximately ten images. This website was written about seven years ago in iWeb08. It loads very fast and is 27.2MB in size. I just did some experimenting with Everweb and after optimization the smallest file size I could get for just one kitchen was 16MB. I have another 30 kitchens to add to this website and I am concerned about viability at this overall and what I think will be overall size. I am going to try to attach a jpeg to show a typical image for the site. If it would be helpful I would like to privately upload my current website URL in case someone could look at my current site to evaluate whether this is a good candidate for Everweb. I am really hoping this will work but am apprehensive about size. In case anybody is interested the next post will contain some metrics from my testing. |
|
 islandIMG_4290.jpg |
|
|
User: Tim S. 11 years ago
|
|
|
I have a question about file size. More specifically the question relates to viability of file size. My apologies in advance for the length of the question. I have a website for my cabinet shop that has approximately 75 pages (30 kitchens) About half of the pages have ten or more images 2000 x 1000 pixels in dimension. The images are very high resolution and the site loads extremely fast. I built the site with iWeb08 on an 8 year old iMac running OSX 10.4.11. The site is hosted by Network Solutions. When I initially publish the iWeb folder the overall file size is 52mb. I then optimize the folder with WebCrusher and end up with a truncated file size of 27.2 MB. This is the size it is when I use FTP to take it to Network Solutions. I have been testing file size in Everweb on a brand new iMac running OSX10.9.4. The test so far has been performed with just one kitchen project with ten photos. I used photoshop to optimize these images for the web. The entire folder size is 24.6MB. I have done some experiments with optimization. In my first experiment I ran the 24.6MB folder through current version of Webcrusher. The optimized file size was 15.1 MB. I then uploaded the images directly into Everweb and optimized everything (including EW) in Webcrusher. There were no significant differences between either approach. It did not matter whether the images were optimized first before loading into Everweb or whether they were uploaded at full size and optimization happened on a site wide basis. With the exception of being slightly darker there was also no significant degradation to the images as a result of running through Webcrusher. ( The images were optimized to 70% size in both Everweb & iWeb08) |
|
|
User: Jumbo T. 11 years ago
|
|
|
Your typical image above is 4368x2912 pixels and 3.2MB. Do you really want me to see the dust on the floor?  Resize the images to a decent size before dropping them on the canvas. What size? The width of your page. And then some less. |
|
|
User: Tim S. 11 years ago
|
|
|
Thanks Jumbo. I hadn't thought about the size of each image. My protocol has been to shoot the picture in RAW format then bring it into photoshop. Once in photoshop I would optimize it with "Save for Web". I presumed at that time the file was sufficiently sized for web. I additionally ran the folder of images through Rage Webcrusher which truncated it again. It is interesting to note that final size did not matter whether I optimized it before loading into Everweb or ran the whole Everweb file through web crusher. This suggests that Everweb itself is running pretty lean code. |
|
|
User: Courtney H. 11 years ago
|
|
|
Tim - Go to the APP Store and get a photo resizer program. There's some good, inexpensive ones. Load your photos in a folder and let it resize them all at once. If your web site is 1028 wide then choose something like 900 pixels. The size will drop drastically. ------------------------------- MrCourtney - Honolulu, HI -------------------------------------- Mac Studio - dial monitors; iMac 27 5K - Dual Monitors - 10 TB hub Alienware: Area 51 - 24 gb - Dual Monitors - All SSD 25 TB network storage |
|
|
User: Jumbo T. 11 years ago
|
|
Use Automator :
|
|
| Post Reply |
| You must login or signup to post. |