How cool would it be if Xara included this technique?
https://css-tricks.com/the-blur-up-t...ground-images/
Printable View
How cool would it be if Xara included this technique?
https://css-tricks.com/the-blur-up-t...ground-images/
Will these scripts work Web Designer and Designer Pro X?
I should think you'd only achieve this with a placeholder or hacking.
Xara could include this technique as an inbuilt feature. The problem for others to do this hacking the code, or using placeholders.
The way I would go with this is through lazy-loading.
The best utility I've found is Unveil: http://luis-almeida.github.io/unveil/, a jQuery plugin.
I have not found the time to knit it into a Xara site but I can see a great potential for larger Supersites.
An approach definitely worth pushing for.
Acorn
A greatly improved loading behavior for supersites was urgently neccessary indeed!
I created some presentations to document my work – I'm actually very happy with the visual outcome
and how one can offer desktop users arrows on hover for navigation, while mobile users may swipe.The way I
approached things I also came along with just one version of the site, which simply scales down but looks
reasonably good on all devices.
Performance however grinds down drastically as soon as one exceeds a certain number of images.
The worst thing about this is that visitors don't get any feedback that the site is still loading! Most of them
likely would even accept a few seconds of loading if they got a generic Loader shown. What they get to see instead
is an unresponsive page, things just plain broken: Great content actually, but the Web-Designer sucks...
Supersites seem to have to download entirely before starting to display, which is kind of unfortunate. But even with
this limitation in place it should only take 3 or 4 seconds to load the largest of my supersites (25MB) with an average
internet connection. I often encounter that it takes way longer, surely longer than average visitors care to wait.
I see two more areas which may negatively impact the site performance. It seems that normal Desktop machines and
Laptops, even smartphones have to download the huge Retina stuff, which pumps up the download volume although the
device can't handle this content! The second thing is the caching behavior – one needs to re-download the entire thing
when one wants to have a closer look on the following day. Here and in particular here are examples for you to have
a look. I'd be happy for some pragmatic hints hints to improve the site behaviours.
Remark to Moderators: Exactly the same entry was already posted 4 day ago or so but neither
did it get approved nor did I get feedback by staff. Here I try again, I think that this is content
developers should get to see. Yes this post does contain links, but you will agree that they are merely
in to illustrate my point.
A greatly improved loading behavior for supersites was urgently neccessary indeed!
I created some presentations to document my work – I'm very happy with the visual outcome
and how one can offer desktop users arrows on hover for navigation, while mobile users may swipe.
The way I approached things I also came along with just one version of the site, which simply scales down
but looks reasonably good on all devices.
Performance however grinds down drastically as soon as one exceeds a certain number of images.
The worst thing about this is that visitors don't get any feedback that the site is still loading. Most of them
likely would even accept a few seconds of loading if they got a Loader shown. What they get to see instead
is an unresponsive page, things just plain broken.
Supersites seem to have to download entirely before starting to display, which is kind of unfortunate. But even
with this limitation in place it should only take 3 or 4 seconds to load the largest of my supersites (25MB) with an average
internet connection. I often encounter that it takes way longer, surely longer than visitors care to wait.
I see two more areas which may negatively impact the site performance. It seems that even normal resolution devices,
even smartphones have to download the huge Retina stuff, which pumps up the download volume although the device
can't handle this content. The second thing is the caching behavior – one needs to re-download the entire thing when
one wants to have a closer look on the following day. Here and in particular here are examples for you to have a look.
I'd appreciate all pragmatic hints, recreating these sites from scratch however is no option.
Welcome to TalkGraphics
Your posts were put into moderation because new members are not permitted links. I have approved your posts.
I do agree totally agree that there is a serious issue with supersites delaying loading until all the content has been downloaded to the browser which even on a high speed connection is interminable.
Thanks Gary,
good that my post was found again! I only posted twice as a feared the original entry was lost, there's
no need to have both of them online. For me it was perfectly in order when the second one (with the red
comment to moderators) got deleted.
A few quick remarks on moderation practice, feel free to move this entry to a more appropriate place.
1) Users with low post count may not privately write a quick reminder to Moderators. That in my case
forced a silly detour via Xara Tech Support.
There's only a support ticket which one may issue from the Talkgraphics site but one shouldn't waste
time using it. If one sits down, explains and transmits an issue that's the automated answer one gets:
If I interpret this right the TG-Ticket is nothing more than a blind alley, then it should be deactivated asap!Quote:
"Thank you for contacting us. This is an automated response confirming the receipt of your ticket.
THIS ERROR REPORT IS READ BY A COMPUTER, NOT A HUMAN! THERE WILL BE NO REPLY.
If you require help from the support team, please submit a ticket from support.xara.com"
As a matter of fact I didn't get any feedback for a week after having issued such a TG-Ticket.
2) Links in entries by users with low post count:
I do perfectly understand that Spam is a big problem but you do manually approve their entries anyway.
So why prohibit Links in posts which very evidently respond to a previous discussion? That kinda reminds
me of Dongles: They are originally meant to punish evilduers but only turn out as a penalty for legitimate users.
why prohibit Links in posts which very evidently respond to a previous discussion?
You have to manually check these links and to know that they do respond to a previous discussion.
The moderators here are volunteers. The system isn't perfect, but they do a great job.
A little patience goes a long way.
I know that it's a Spam strategy to publish plausible apprearing posts but they are still generic mass products
and easily identified. Nobody writes a long and obviously thoughtful post and lards it with links to blue pills.
Hoja, your post was approved after a small delay.
It's not perfect but it works.
A whole week to be precise. :) Now let's agree to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by pauland
Absolutely.
The trick for a new Poster is to simply write about their problem without adding Links.
Such a Post is not moderated and you then attract the attention of the TGers; one who would invite the Poster to provide the links.
That way, a number of Moderators get to see the Post and can nudge the Moderator who is expected to release the Post. Most Moderators cannot see moderated Posts in other forums.
Acorn
Hehe, tricks require knowledge.
Non moderators /new posters have no idea about the "who can see what under what circumstances".
Let's not get lost here, but I sure could enter likely a dozen other fora with less restrictions. Some, not all
of them have have manual approval for a couple of posts but if that is the case links are no problem.
***
Do you have any idea what I could do to improve the loading performance, in particular of the second sample?
Should I re-publish without Retina checked? Does it make sense to create a mobile variant or would one still
download all larger version images when calling the site from a phone?