I have a question.
I am currently developing a website and I am nearly finished with the gallery section. The gallery section will display either a) a pdf file or b) several pngs(these pngs will be displayed under each other, it will look just like the pdf) when a user clicks on one of the gallery pictures.
I have the option of choosing between as said PDF or png.
The problem is the pdf files are up towards 5mb and I cannot do anything about this. I was thinking of preloading the pdf files or pngs in advance.
I am looking for one thing: site preformance.
Is it better to preload the one pdf (there will be up towards 20-30 pdfs in this gallery, so I will be preloading 20-30 pdf's) or is it better to go with the png approach (20-30*x amount of pages).
Or if anyone else has a better idea?
The best criteria will be to try, measure and see for yourself.
In any case, you might try to reduce the load by finding balance between amount of pre-loaded data and simplicity and load.
In case of PNGs you might try to split images into smaller parts and preload only images required to display one or two first pages. This will allow visitor to quickly open those pages (he might not go farther after all).
In case of PDFs you might linearize documents (optimize them for Fast Web View). For linearized documents you might try to preload beginning of the file only. There is a question about finding how much you should preload. Adobe plugin opens linearized files faster then non-linearized. I am not aware about other PDF plugins that make use of this optimization, though.
Related
recently I made a website for my photography. htttp://www.simotamas.com
I am a newbie, so its not the best site but it works fine for me, I got only one problem, when a site is loaded on a device for the first time, the gallery loading time takes up to 1-2 seconds.
Could you guys please check if I mess up something with the code?
Or should I made the pictures even smaller?
Any way I could increase the loading performance.
I would be really thankful for any advice.
Some points you can consider
Use thumbnails for preview (low resolution) , while clicking load actual image.
Load images of only visible part first then load the images in bottom. (May affect user experience)
if you have cpu power , use any libraries like cache tools or compression tools like
https://nielse63.github.io/php-image-cache/ . benchmark it carefully.
use gzip if you are not using gzip compression for your server.
The fact your website doesn't wait for the image to load is considered a plus (look into asynchronous web page content loading for a good read) that said you should compress your images before uploading them.. tinypng.com is a nice tool for it... But if it's a photography website doing so would reduce picture quality... Try to play with Photoshop save settings to find your ideal compromise between quality and size with respect to "memory" size... Pictures are heavy.. high definition and resolution will obviously result in heavier files to download
Update: another thing you could do is actually display (smaller) thumbnail and only load the full picture on request. I.e: user clicks and image opens in new tab
It would help if you create smaller thumb versions of your images so the browser can initially load these ones for the overview and no need for scaling way to big images down while rendering the page. An image should always be downloaded in the dimension it's going to be presented.
I’ve been thinking a while about the best solution and as much as I read I get more and more confused. There are a lot of different libraries and helpers (most of them are outdated or for CI 1.x) and I really need your help.
I have a custom CMS based on CodeIgniter 2.1.3, news site that has about 40-50 images on the home page, but 80% of them are really small thumbnails in 3 different sizes and the other 20% of the images on the home page are in 2 sizes + for the inner pages when I list the news from a category there is 1 size of thumbnails. So in total I will need the original image for the news story, + 5-6 thumbnails sizes for the home page.
What’s the smartest way to deal with this? There will be let’s say 10-50 new news per day.
Is it still better to create 5-6 thumbnails per image during the upload?
What about the method “on the fly”? I’m more into this method, as I read, only the first visitor will call the library/helper to generate the thumbnails, and for the others the thumbnails will be already created so it won’t waste CPU. What about this method? Is it good practice?
What caching techniques I should use for these what I need?
Also I forgot to ask, how the other CMS system deal with generating the thumbnails? I mean about Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla, etc.
Do they store predefined sizes or generate them on the fly?
I guess their logic should be the best, or maybe not, but I want to implement something smart in my CodeIgniter CMS.
I didn’t mention, but I think it’s not important to this, I use Grocery CRUD for the admin panel.
Any help is appreciated.
Your best bet is to create images on the fly + use CDN like Amazon Cloudfront to cache the resized versions of your source image.
I’ve been using CodeIgniter for a number of years to build websites where lots of different sizes of images are used throughout the website. At the beginning I used to create every size needed out of the original image during the upload process (could easily end up with more than 5 thumbnails). This proved to be delivering the best performance – whenever you need an image of the certain size you just include it with no additional PHP processing. However I noticed that I end up with a huge number of images on the server, where the older ones may not even be used that often (e.g.: articles older than a year). Plus developing this way takes longer.
Then I started creating images on the fly, firstly using 3rd party libraries and later developed my own interface for CodeIgniter. This saves a lot of time, because during the upload process you save an original version of the image not worrying about resized versions. When displaying an image in the front end, all you normally need to do is to pass certain dimensions of the image required. Doing this way, not only you can get 5-6 versions of the image, but as many as you need. Also that’s a solution for the future when you redesign your website where the different sized images might be needed! What would you do when none of your 5 thumbnail options are no longer valid and you need different sizes?
You’re right, resizing an image on the fly can really be CPU consuming operation (especially when the large images are involved), therefore caching is a must. You can cache images right on your server or get CDN on top of that.
To keep the server tidy I normally run a cron job to delete on-the-fly images older than let's say a week. That saves space + doesn't cause harm - whenever image is needed to display, it'll just get recreated.
Check out timthumb, it's a script that resizes images on the fly and stores them in a cache. It's a simple as including an image tag with parameters in the URL.
ALso check this link which looks promising http://www.jenssegers.be/blog/31/Codeigniter-resizing-and-cropping-images-on-the-fly-continued
I love the way Drupal manage this. In Drupal 6 there was a module called imagecache (now is in core in Drupal 7, but functionality is very similar), which basically stores presets for images (image sizes, transformations, effects...) and when the visitor ask for an image the module generate different images based on presets and serve this images. This way you upload an image but have different images for different purposes.
The module has a really useful feature, if you want to change one preset, you can "flush" all the images related with that preset, so the visitors can see the changes.
Of course there are many other modules in Drupal related to imagecache or image styles, that add other effects like watermarks...
More information:
http://drupal.org/node/949222
http://drupal.org/node/163561
My website seems to take on this "squeegee" type load effect, where all of the graphics load from the top down with an ugly top to bottom wiping effect. Is there a way to make the actual way in which your website renders graphics prettier?
I'd be more interested in why your page is taking so long to load and/or render. If it takes several seconds to draw, even on a fast connection, you might want to look into why that is. Tools such as Fiddler, Firebug, IE Developer Tools, etc can help you look at what resources your page is downloading and how big each research is.
If you have massive resources on the page (such as BMP or PNG files that are several hundred K), see if you can convert them to other formats or resize them on the server to the size they render at.
If your HTML is massively complex, such as huge nested tables, you might want to look into simplifying that with more modern HTML and CSS styling.
If you do have huge, high-res bitmaps that need to be loaded, you might want to preload them with script and then render them dynamically when they finish loading.
In our web application, the users need to review a large number of images. This is my current layout. 20 images will be displayed at a time, with a pagination bar above the thumbnails. Clicking a thumbnail will show the enlarged image to the left. The enlarged image will follow the scrollbar so it's always visible. Quite simple actually.
I was wondering what the best interface would be in this scenario:
One option is to implement an infinite scroll script which will lazy load thumbnails as the user scrolls. The thumbnails not visible will be removed from the DOM. But my concern with this approach is the number of changes in the DOM slowing down the page.
Another option could be something like Google's Fastflip.
What do you think is the best approach for this application? Radical ideas welcomed.
I think the question you have to ask is: what action is user supposed to do? What's the purpose of the site?
If "review images" entails rating every image, I'd rather go with a Fastflip approach where the focus is on the single image. A thumbnail gallery will distract from the desired action and might result in a smaller amount of pics rated/reviewed.
If the focus should rather be on the comparison of a given image against others, I'd say try the gallery approach, although I wouldn't impement an infinite scroll with thumbnails because user can quickly get lost in the abundance of choices. I think a standard pagination (whether static or ajaxified) would be better if you choose to go this route.
Just my 2c.
If you paginate thumbnails, you can pre-generate a single image containing all thumbnails for each page, then use an image map to handle mouseover text and clicking. This will reduce the number of HTTP requests and possibly lead to fewer bytes sent. The separation distance between images should be minimized for this to be most efficient. This would have some disadvantages.
To reduce image download size at the expense of preprocessing, you can try to save each image in the format (PNG or JPG) most efficient for its contents using an algorithm like the one in ImageGuide. Similarly, if the images are poorly compressed (like JPEGs from a cell phone camera), they can be recompressed at the cost of some quality.
Once the site has some testers, you can analyze patterns in which images tend to be clicked (if a pattern exists) and preload the full-size images, or even pre-load all of them once the thumbs are loaded.
You might play with JPEG2000 images (you did say "radical ideas welcomed"), which thumb very easily, because the thumbnail and main image needn't be sent as if they are separate files. This is an advantage of the compression format -- it isn't the same as the hack of telling the browser to resize the full size image to represent its own thumbnail.
You can take a look at Google's WebP image format.
At the server side, a separate image server optimized for static content delivery, perhaps using NginX or the Tux webserver.
I would show the thumbnails, since the user might want to skip some of the pictures. I would also stay away of pagination in the terms of
<<first <previuos n of x next> last>>
and go for something more easy to implement and efficient. A
load x more pictures.
No infinite scroll whatsoever and why not, even no scroll at all. Just load x more, previous x.
Although this answer might be a bit unradical and boring, I'd go with exactly your suggestion of asynchronously loading the thumbnails (and of course main picture), if they come into view. A similar technique is used by Google+ in the pane to add persons to circles. This way, you keep the server resources and bandwidth on the pictures that are needed by the client. As Google+ shows, the operations on the DOM tree are fast enough and don't slow down a computer of the past years.
You might also prebuilt a few lines of the thumbnail table ahead with a dummy image (e.g. a "loading circle" animated gif) and replace the image. That way, the table in view is already built and does not need to be rerendered, as the flow elements following the table would have to be, if no images are in there during scrolling.
Instead of paginating the thumbnails (as suggested by your layout scheme), you could also think about letting users filter the images by tag, theme, category, size or any other way to find their results faster.
This may well be a little of an open-ended question
The site I am working on requires to be optimised for performance. One of the key areas is to optimise the file sizes of the images used upon the site.
Unfortunatley these images are being created by employees who do not have the required knowledge for creating images for the web, and it is my job to produce a set of guidelines for them to use.
I was wondering whether there was any resource/guidlines/literature regarding typical images file sizes for images of different dimensions - as I would like to include something like this to aid them to ensure their images are being created properly.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance
I can't answer the opinion question, but I can suggest some guidelines that will keep your images smaller.
First off, if they're using Photoshop to edit their images, it's likely they're storing a whole bunch of crap in the headers (digital papertrail, EXIF data, and such). Also, folks will frequently save in too high a bit depth.
For novice users, trying to explain why they need to use "save for web" is more likely to confuse them. Instead, just point them at:
http://www.smushit.com/ysmush.it/
This site is rather handy - it will compress all the images on a page you specify, or you can upload the images.
You should strongly consider writing some guidelines about where images are stored as well. It's frequently very beneficial to have your static image content stored on several servers, apart from your dynamic content. Most browsers will only download a limited # of files at a time from any given website (usually it's 2).
Unless there's a good reason, all your images should be cached using one of the HTTP cache techniques (expires, etags, etc).
Good luck.
72 dpi as a resolution and either jpeg or png formats work best.
Try to use images at the exact pixel area size they will end up being displayed as. This is specified by the images height and width attributes.
You can set the output quality of a jpeg image which will also save file size although there is a trade off against image quality.
I hope this is of use.