5 ms·
BTW, if the page author happens to be reading this. (loved the article BTW) Your header image Screenshot_15.png is 2½ megs in size which is pretty brutal on s
by capitainenemo 3y ago
BTW, if the page author happens to be reading this. (loved the article BTW)
Your header image Screenshot_15.png is 2½ megs in size which is pretty brutal on slower connections or for those with data costs. Plus it causes it to load a lot less snappily even on a decent connection.
It is served in a fixed width 827px container yet is 1902px in size. Given the content (a simulated planet with fuzzy content) extra detail for HD isn't super useful and png will not compress well. Allowing for a little extra width for later retheming and then recompressing as jpeg...
$ convert Screenshot_15.png -scale 1240x Screenshot_15_1240.png
$ ~/hg/mozjpeg/cjpeg Screenshot_15_1240.png > Screenshot_15_1240.jpeg
$ ls -l Screenshot_15_1240.jpeg
-rw-r--r-- 1 nemo nemo 65870 Mar 7 13:55 Screenshot_15_1240.jpeg
2.6% the size of the original.
- kakkun 3y agoAlso, there are some font size inconsistencies in the main body that should be looked into.
- wiredfool 3y agoMy bank has a similarly sized png as the texture background of their pages, and sometimes it visibly, slowly, loads fresh on each page you go through.
- EvanAnderson 3y agoYou're doing God's work. Thank you for caring.
- gerdesj 3y agoWhich God?
- SturgeonsLaw 3y agoThe God that was abandoned when Webmasters became Frontend Devs
- tux1968 3y agoYou might want to check out a large-image blocker for your browser, like this one for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/large-image-blocker/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/large-image-b...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bobbylarrybobby 3y agoNothing upsets me more than people using PNGs when they should be using JPEGs, and vice versa