This morning a SPORRS List subscriber asked me a very good question, and since others have asked me about this to some degree as well, I thought it beneficial to post the answers to the list.
That question: > ...any chance of more thumbnails and less graphics load to make the > thing faster? Answer: No, unfortunately. The question contradicts itself in a way, but I'll try my best to explain: The current graphics (non-photo logos) have no noticeable effect on page loading time for reasons described below, but the RR pictures do, even with the smallest file sizes useable, which is what we are using. Any smaller, and our images would no longer resemble photographs, but rough jagged graphics instead. Also, any time more images are added (like separate thumbnail files - explained below), the site will just get slower, not faster. And the key to making pages load quickly around the pictures is to define each images' size in pixels on the HTML source code, so that the rest of the page can load without uninterruption around the exact pixel spaces that the images will follow into. Some basic understanding of HTML would be helpful here, and this issue of thumbnails and file size is described in the SPORRS News Section on the web site somewhat, but here's more: The first SPORRS (home) page (the one with all of our pictures on it) loads slow because all of the image files (which are used for both the thumbnails and the larger sized pictures that they link to) have to load on that first page or there wouldn't be any pictures on it. So... Next Question: > can you use smaller files for the thumbnails, like GIF files? Answer: GIF files of the size we need are actually bigger than JPG files and look worse. GIF files are usually just used for logos with a limited amount of colors in them. I could use much lower quality GIFs (with less colors) for the image thumbnails, but the JPG files would still be required for the big images, so that would not make them load any faster in this case. It would actually make the site slower to use by adding more files to load, and in order to make a smaller file size (in kilobytes) GIF thumbnail, it would have to be of such poor quality that you wouldn't be able to identify what most of them are. (And the JPG files are still required for the big images). A full color (256) GIF file contains less colors and image data in it than a JPG, and actually takes up more file space than a JPG, because JPG files are highly compressed. When you see GIF files (like the SPORRS logos) first appear fuzzy and then get sharper as they load, this is because the file is 'interlaced' and loading in layers. This 'interlaced' type of GIF does not actually load any faster than any other, but it can help the rest of the page load faster only because the image dimension is quickly defined (if it's not already defined in the code) on the page so the rest of the page can load around it. All JPG images on the SPORRS site are defined in the source code by their pixel dimensions, so there would be no benefit at all in using interlaced GIF images for that purpose on the site. The benefit to using a GIF file can only be realized with images that can be displayed with the lowest number of colors as possible. The current JPG files are pulling 'double duty' by being used for both thumbnails and full images from the same single file for each image. After the first page loads, they are already downloaded in your cache so you can then quickly click from one image to the next without waiting for anything else to load. Otherwise, you would have to wait for EACH image to load separately when you looked at each one. If we want to have our thumbnail selections and see big images too, then we have to wait for them to load at some point. Waiting initially for the site to load can be frustrating with a slow modem, but this is still generally less objectionable than waiting for EACH image to load as you view them one at a time while having less images to select from as well. Question: >can you put all the pictures on another page of the web site? Answer: If I move all of the images to a separate page in the site, then the first page would load in a snap, but it would contain no RR pictures, and in this example, when you would go to that separate page to look at the images, then you would have to wait, just like now, but one at a time, to see any image (with nothing else to read while you would be waiting, because if you would go back a page to the first page at that point, then that second image page would stop loading). A page only loads when you are on it. If you haven't visited a particular page on a site yet, then you must wait for each page to load as you visit each one. I hope this answers some of your questions. Subscribers input welcome. Regards, Dave Cohen Photographer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.att.net/~acphotog SPORRS: http://home.att.net/~acphotog/sporrs/sporrs.htm --> SPORRS: Serious Photographers of Railroad Related Subjects X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 Content-Length: 1692
