4 ms·

This website is hilariously slow to download. Why is each screenshot an enormous PNG?

by nwh 14y ago

Kiro 14y ago
How else would you do it?
- chromejs10 14y ago
  Lower res thumbnails of course where if I decide I actually like the UI I click it to view the high res. It's wasteful and slow to have ALL images on the same page be the highest resolution
  - zalew 14y ago
    if you click something that says 'photo gallery' or 'screenshot showcase' you probably should expect there are big images inside. IMO low res thumbnails are the most disgraceful way to showcase pictures. OP website is just really slow though. the screenshots are just 150kb each.
    - ChrisClark 14y ago
      Yes, but the images are much larger than the size they are shown on the site. They are being downloaded full size and resized by the browser to fit. The 'thumbnail' would be the size the site is showing them at right now. Clicking it would bring you to the full size.
    - nwh 14y ago
      There's ~1Mb PNG in there as well, depends heavily on the content.
- nonamegiven 14y ago
  A small png. Download one of those things, they're five times the size of what gets displayed, but you have to download the whole thing anyway. A little responsibility would have been good.
  - awj 14y ago
    I think they are in the "handle retina by giving everyone ginormous images" camp.
  - PavlovsCat 14y ago
    I didn't bother checking all out, but from an initial test with pngslim, there is quite a lot of bytesize reduction possible without even touching the dimensions. And then there is indexed color vs 24bp...! This being "flat design" and whatnot, 256 should work for most if not all, and for some you probably could even go lower. "But then it's not pristine" -- sure, but also is a lot less pretentious and more enjoyable to visit. It's just simplicistic design... I mean, nothing against painting a blue square one a red canvas and calling it "Mothership 20B" or something, but that's not a Van Gogh. You can hang it in an art gallery if that is what makes you happy. (I actually find many of them quite pretty, I'm just being mean because some folks could really use a dose of reality - form following functionality is not a new concept, neither is minimalism, and "flat design" is not something I will ever say with a straight face, I utterly refuse to pretend there is now suddenly such a thing. As the saying goes, some day we will look back on this, laugh nervously, and change the subject.)
marknutter 14y ago
I'm on a gigabit fiber connection and these images still took forever to load. If you're going to use large images, at least use a server that can serve them in a timely manner.

This website is hilariously slow to download. Why is each screenshot an enormous PNG?

by nwh 14y ago

This website is hilariously slow to download. Why is each screenshot an enormous PNG?

Kiro 14y ago

How else would you do it?

chromejs10 14y ago
Lower res thumbnails of course where if I decide I actually like the UI I click it to view the high res. It's wasteful and slow to have ALL images on the same page be the highest resolution
- zalew 14y ago
  if you click something that says 'photo gallery' or 'screenshot showcase' you probably should expect there are big images inside. IMO low res thumbnails are the most disgraceful way to showcase pictures. OP website is just really slow though. the screenshots are just 150kb each.
  - ChrisClark 14y ago
    Yes, but the images are much larger than the size they are shown on the site. They are being downloaded full size and resized by the browser to fit. The 'thumbnail' would be the size the site is showing them at right now. Clicking it would bring you to the full size.
  - nwh 14y ago
    There's ~1Mb PNG in there as well, depends heavily on the content.
nonamegiven 14y ago
A small png. Download one of those things, they're five times the size of what gets displayed, but you have to download the whole thing anyway. A little responsibility would have been good.
- awj 14y ago
  I think they are in the "handle retina by giving everyone ginormous images" camp.
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  I didn't bother checking all out, but from an initial test with pngslim, there is quite a lot of bytesize reduction possible without even touching the dimensions. And then there is indexed color vs 24bp...! This being "flat design" and whatnot, 256 should work for most if not all, and for some you probably could even go lower. "But then it's not pristine" -- sure, but also is a lot less pretentious and more enjoyable to visit. It's just simplicistic design... I mean, nothing against painting a blue square one a red canvas and calling it "Mothership 20B" or something, but that's not a Van Gogh. You can hang it in an art gallery if that is what makes you happy. (I actually find many of them quite pretty, I'm just being mean because some folks could really use a dose of reality - form following functionality is not a new concept, neither is minimalism, and "flat design" is not something I will ever say with a straight face, I utterly refuse to pretend there is now suddenly such a thing. As the saying goes, some day we will look back on this, laugh nervously, and change the subject.)

marknutter 14y ago

I'm on a gigabit fiber connection and these images still took forever to load. If you're going to use large images, at least use a server that can serve them in a timely manner.