3 ms·

Looks great! One thing I did notice is the background image (http://www.pantastic.co/ggb.png http://www.pantastic.co/ggb.png) loads really slow for me and the d

Looks great! One thing I did notice is the background image (http://www.pantastic.co/ggb.png http://www.pantastic.co/ggb.png) loads really slow for me and the design feels a little broken without it. Overall love the look though :)

ErikRogneby 14y ago
I will second that. when the drop shadow font loaded on top of white I thought to myself, "the HN design geeks are going to slay this." I am sure it didn't help that we were all hammering the site.
- michaelmior 14y ago
  Very true. It's not really a fair time to judge performance. It would probably be a good idea to set a dark background colour in that area while the image is loading.
  - nwienert 14y ago
    Granted it's a massive png, should be a jpg with 50-80% quality, especially given it's already blurred.
munger 14y ago
Nice looking site overall. As others have mentioned - image optimization will help you a lot. Taking a look at firebug Net profiling, the homepage footprint weighs in at 2MB. 500K is your "studio" image, followed by the bridge bg photo at 370K. So just optimizing these 2 images will reduce your bandwidth by around 660K or 33%. I'm guessing you can do both in 210K (150K bridge, 60K studio = 210K) possibly better. EDIT: decided to actually fix it instead of just talking about it. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6653594/pantastic-there-i-fixed-it.7z https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6653594/pantastic-there-i-fixed-it.... studio.jpg photoshop jpg 70 quality ggb.jpg photoshop jpg 80 quality old: 494k + 369k = 863k new: 64k + 1k + 70k = 135k savings = 728K or 36% of your total homepage footprint. Save more by splitting all your polaroid shadows to png, and the photos to jpg 60-80 quality. Requires html/css change to layout studio image as 2 images stacked on top (separate shadow png)
- thfc06 14y ago
  thanks so much! I didn't realize load time would be such a problem

ErikRogneby 14y ago

I will second that. when the drop shadow font loaded on top of white I thought to myself, "the HN design geeks are going to slay this." I am sure it didn't help that we were all hammering the site.

michaelmior 14y ago
Very true. It's not really a fair time to judge performance. It would probably be a good idea to set a dark background colour in that area while the image is loading.
- nwienert 14y ago
  Granted it's a massive png, should be a jpg with 50-80% quality, especially given it's already blurred.

munger 14y ago

Nice looking site overall. As others have mentioned - image optimization will help you a lot. Taking a look at firebug Net profiling, the homepage footprint weighs in at 2MB. 500K is your "studio" image, followed by the bridge bg photo at 370K. So just optimizing these 2 images will reduce your bandwidth by around 660K or 33%. I'm guessing you can do both in 210K (150K bridge, 60K studio = 210K) possibly better. EDIT: decided to actually fix it instead of just talking about it. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6653594/pantastic-there-i-fixed-it.7z https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6653594/pantastic-there-i-fixed-it.... studio.jpg photoshop jpg 70 quality ggb.jpg photoshop jpg 80 quality old: 494k + 369k = 863k new: 64k + 1k + 70k = 135k savings = 728K or 36% of your total homepage footprint. Save more by splitting all your polaroid shadows to png, and the photos to jpg 60-80 quality. Requires html/css change to layout studio image as 2 images stacked on top (separate shadow png)

thfc06 14y ago
thanks so much! I didn't realize load time would be such a problem