3 ms·
Impressive! You can do some more front-end stuff to improve the speed too, like adding a good CDN and optimising your images. For example, [1] is ~790KB which i
by ilarum 10y ago
Impressive! You can do some more front-end stuff to improve the speed too, like adding a good CDN and optimising your images. For example, [1] is ~790KB which is great for viewing on a 5k iMac, but is probably unnecessary when someone is viewing your website from a low powered phone on a slow 3G connection. There are various tools like ImageOptim or Dexecure (which I work on) to solve this issue. See [1] and [2] for a comparision on how this single image can be compressed further.
[1] https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8380/29778359335_f59e0b4fcb_k.jpg https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8380/29778359335_f59e0b4fcb_k...
[2] https://bigdemosyncopt.dexecure.net/https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8380/29778359335_f59e0b4fcb_k.jpg https://bigdemosyncopt.dexecure.net/https://farm9.staticflic...
Note that [2] varies in size and format depending on your user agent and it becomes ~70KB when viewed from a chrome mobile device.
- mozumder 10y agoI do use PICTURE elements of various sizes, so it shouldn't be loading the 790kb version on a phone. Most likely either the 107kb version or the 220kb version.
- ilarum 10y agoYep picture tag is really useful. I had tested on WPT and found a big image [1] so I assumed you hadn't taken care of this yet. [1] ~500KB image on 3G mobile device and load time of ~15.9s (https://www.webpagetest.org/result/161224_M7_29Q/ https://www.webpagetest.org/result/161224_M7_29Q/)