Experimenting with Taking Content Tree off Home Page

[pinbrook]

I waited 45 secs to see the first page

I'm on ADSL in an internet cafe

[Max]

Anyone else still seeing delays? Were the images the remaining problem for some?

I appreciate the feedback.

c

Your site banner is so heavy it would sink a battle ship

what is also slowing down your site is the network solutions logo (call through javascript)

Max

[Charles Bastari]

My own common sense is beginning to kick in (finally). I'm still in a learning curve on a lot of internet.....stuff. It's becoming obvious that load time will always vary, sometimes with great disparity, depending on connection speed, computer power, and server speed at any given time of day. It will never satisfy all in all places at all times of day.

For some it will probably always be slow. I know from working with it on my associates computers that it could be lightning fast under the right circumstances even before the changes.

Comprises will be met. I will leave the content tree off. I will reduce the sizes of the images on the rework. However, the banner will remain as it is and the Site Seal will remain because without those the only semblance of originality would be the text.

I'll leave it at that. Thanks for all the input from all sides. I've taken it to heart.

Regards,
Charles

[Max]

My own common sense is beginning to kick in (finally). However, the banner will remain as it is and the Site Seal will remain because without those the only semblance of originality would be the text.

I'll leave it at that. Thanks for all the input from all sides. I've taken it to heart.

Regards,
Charles

Charles, its not the physical size (visual) of your graphics, its the actual kilobytes that slow your pages down, for example your banner is very very heavy in kilobytes, I reduced the weight of this without detracting from visual size or quality of the graphic itself, eg presently its 40329 bytes (798 x 83 pixels), even with a minimum of effort I have it down to 9360 bytes (798 x 83 pixels), without any loss in quality.

Max

[Charles Bastari]

Max,

I'm not comprehending how you reduce the 'weight' without reducing the image size or compromising image quality. How did you reduce it from 40Kb to 10? Is there a file type that takes less space than a jpeg?

Scratch that.

I got busy on Google and was able to learn about image optimization software. I Didn't know such a thing existed. Anyway, I downloaded a trial version from Xat.com and got the logo down to 11.8Kb. You were right. It doesn't look any different. Will be uploading it in a few minutes. I'll have to try it with the other images that I've taken out. I've been missing the point all along about references to my image 'sizes'. (They didn't 'look' too big to me.)

Apologies to Malcolm. He's been trying to tell me this for some time and I didn't get it.

Thanks so much for the tip. Maybe there's hope for my home page after all.

(Hmm, so i guess this image optimization thing is pretty common knowledge around here, right?)

[RuralWeb]

Loads very quickly now - told you!!

[Charles Bastari]

It's interesting that the load time is better. I've just found out that the 1.5MB+ Act_section_tree.js file is still being called on when the page loads.

The only thing removing the code seems to have done is get rid of it visually.

QTY SIZE# TYPE URL
1 1584124 SCRIPT http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalo...ection_tree.js
1 15945 SCRIPT https://seals.networksolutions.com/s...pt/siteseal.js
1 12171 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalo...1Optimized.jpg
1 9460 HTML http://supplyspecialties.biz
1 6595 SCRIPT http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/actiniccore.js
1 1751 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/gradient1.gif
1 1675 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/gradient2.gif
1 1397 SCRIPT http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/actinicextras.js
1 588 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/info1.gif
1 486 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/mail1.gif
1 484 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/departments.gif
1 455 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/main_pages.gif
1 424 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/sitemap1.gif
1 346 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/login1.gif
1 323 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/home1.gif
1 215 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/menu_bottom.gif
1 188 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/top_bar.gif
1 149 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/cart_bg.gif
3 43 IMG http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/shim.gif
3 43 SCRIPT http://supplyspecialties.biz/acatalog/shim.gif
20 ^ 1636862* Total (^unique objects)

It's hard to believe that a few 'heavy' images could make the difference considering the size of the section tree. I may as well put it back. I haven't gotten rid of anything for all the trouble.

[Max]

Charles, I figured that you were not getting the idea of image size being related not only to visual size, thats why I included the weight and unchanged visual size.

I'm pleased you worked it out.


Max