Printable View
Xara WebDesigner pro+ 20.2
Wintel 32gbram i7, 250Gb ssd/2TBSata
I've designed my own web site, but Analytics is warning me about a lot of unusued elements (css, js, pics, fonts) that slows dramatically the loading time.
Now, please, do you know if there is a way to get rid of all the unusued elements for good?
Thanks in advance
Best regards
Hermes
Hermes, welcome to TalkGraphics. If elements are unused, they are not being accessed and therefore cannot be affecting your website.Quote:
Originally Posted by hermesaudio
You will have to offer up your site's URL and the tool you have used before any real help can be offered.
Does your site seem quick to you as a user?
Acorn
Hi Acorn !Quote:
Originally Posted by Acorn
Thanks for the wellcoming and fast response !
Yes. You are right. Is really slow when loading some elements.
Of course, Css and js has been minified and the jpg/png optimized too. But still there is a lot of "things" loading... and nothing happening.
http://www.hermesaudio.es
Thank you all for your time
Best
Hermes
When you make changes to your site, Xara deletes old files. But you can also delete all your files and then publish your site again and any files that are not being used should be gone.
Hermes
Thank you for the link.
You have a home page download of 12.4MB, which is vast.
Most of your images are oversized. You should first use your XDA to Optimise all images. You state "and the jpg/png optimized too", but this is not the case.
http://www.hermesaudio.es/index_htm_files/41712@2x.png is 2.5MB and is 3348x1002px.
You are using Scale to Fit Width with three Variants.
You have not set a maximum display width; I suggest 1440px. A page width of 2560px is excessive when most viewers will be happy with 1280px.
There are a lot of fetches of images before the page decides which variant to render; these may be your unused assets.
I suggest removing one of the variants.
Your testimonials are all PNGs without explicit widths or heights.
I suggest the Widget you chose is not fit for purpose.
Overall, the Home page has too many actions and activities: parallax, slide-ins, fade-ins. Few add to the impact of the page.
Also having a hero image of 800px height defeats the whole point of setting a good first impression as the viewer has to immediately scroll.
Acorn
My personal observation - when you publish, click on "Change FTP settings..." and un-select "Fast Publish (Only changed files)". Does the trick for me. Alternatively, delete everything from your FTP program and upload your files again.
If I recall correctly, optimizing images in an XDA only affects their size in the .xar/.web file, not those that are uploaded to the server as part of the website.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acorn
Boy, you are right but by setting the size and the dpi to web standard settings (retina @2x) subsequent changes do no result in massive upload sizes. The optimisation is a sort of throttle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boy
Taking http://www.hermesaudio.es/index_htm_files/41712@2x.png as a case study.
Xara loads it in at 12MB for 3348x1002px @96dpi.
Its actual file size is 2.5MB. (c.f., PNG vs BMP).
The large difference is how Xara stores images as bitmaps and applies compression after all effects have been applied.
I fitted it to 1440px and published, with Retina, giving 2880x860 @192dpi and a file size of 177kB.
Without Retina, it is 1440x430 @96dpi and 50kB.
If you Optimise the same 1440px wide image the Bitmap galley image reduces from 3348px wide to 1440px; its (Xara) file size is 2,418kB.
Saved locally it is 573kB.
It is still the 177kB/50kB file that is published but the Xara design is considerably smaller and therefore manageable.
In the OP's case the 41712@2x.png is a whopping 2.5MB, 13 or 50 times larger than necessary.
Acorn
That should help the OP.
Wow ! such a response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acorn
I'm very pleased to hear all the suggestions from all of you.
Accon, you are right about my index page, concerning, animation, size, variants... (work in progress)
Anyway, about the weight of the pics, there is something extrange. Your example (41712@2x.png) in the software is created with 3 different pictures sized: 37Kbytes, 97Kbytes and 74 Kbyts... and once shared with all the variants and exported, you'll find an ASTRONOMIC 2.5MB file instead 3 different small ones.
Belive me, I'm not stupid. I know perfectly this is an ABSURD SIZE.
The fact is I'm wondering if perhaps better to start over a fresh new site.
Best regards
Hermes
Thank you all the people for your help.
I've discovered a glitch on my installation.... and severes bad instructions by my side.
So I'm proceeding with an all fresh new site from the bottom to the top.
Best regards to all the community helping the newbbies.
Hermes
@Hermes, frustrating as it is, a rework gets rid of the clag that builds up so you end up with something better.
I do it all the time.
Thanks for advising back.
Acorn
Hi Acorn !
You can Bet !
I'm hands on. (and publishing continuously as you can see at the web site)
Some things has changed others not yet, but my learning does it a lot.
Thanks for your kind advices.
Best Regards from Barcelona
Hermes
