Our New Site using: Xara Web Designer 10 Premium Supersite with XT-CMS 1.9

**pauland** · 03 October 2015, 02:45 PM

If there's a will to continue all this stuff about Adobe and compression, etc then perhaps start it on another thread. It's somewhat off topic and I think we've already given a heads-up to the issue and should leave it rest. The OPs site is perfectly functional, regardless.

**Acorn** · 03 October 2015, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by pauland

If there's a will to continue all this stuff about Adobe and compression, etc then perhaps start it on another thread. It's somewhat off topic and I think we've already given a heads-up to the issue and should leave it rest. The OPs site is perfectly functional, regardless.

Normally, I would agreed but the OP asked about compression and there was a digression into going down an expensive Adobe rabbit hole. I suggested a free solution that might be of use. The last point is I do not think the site is functional as, for me, it takes 13 seconds to render the image carousel. Compression may assist but I think the site design needs to reduce this overhead and probably as it is a Variant site and Supersite, lose the super bit to get the home page loaded as quickly as possible.

@Karen:

Change the carousel images to four square static pictures like the Services & Programs.
Lose the Menu - Services and Programs images are doing that already.
Use the B&W Quick Links as your unique feature along the top of your pages - they are very effective.
Switch away from a Supersite to a conventional one.
Footer - uses different fonts to no benefit.
Last one - I just can't see what benefit XT-CMS has given you - all they seem to do is lose context so I am forced to navigate back using the menu.

Acorn

**nazf355** · 03 October 2015, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Acorn

Normally, I would agreed but the OP asked about compression and there was a digression into going down an expensive Adobe rabbit hole. I suggested a free solution that might be of use. The last point is I do not think the site is functional as, for me, it takes 13 seconds to render the image carousel. Compression may assist but I think the site design needs to reduce this overhead and probably as it is a Variant site and Supersite, lose the super bit to get the home page loaded as quickly as possible.

This is exactly what I was going to say, it's not functional for me either on a 1.5MB per second connection it's still taking 11 seconds to load.
I also wouldn't call Adobe an expensive rabbit hole, you can get an old version of elements say v9 for as little as a tenner, but anyway, moving on.

**Egg Bramhill** · 03 October 2015, 06:51 PM

To widen the subject somewhat I'd test your site in something like LINK which can give you excellent advice on reducing download speeds.

If I run your site through a site map generator it shows 64 pages which is huge for supersite.

**nazf355** · 03 October 2015, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Egg Bramhill

To widen the subject somewhat I'd test your site in something like LINK which can give you excellent advice on reducing download speeds.

If I run your site through a site map generator it shows 64 pages which is huge for supersite.

I use this one

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/

It's free

**Egg Bramhill** · 04 October 2015, 01:37 AM

Hi nazf, not going to start a which on-line website optimisation site is the best to use but your link seems to be based on a book first produced in mid 2008 with no further editions. I'd suggest that a seven year old optomisation site is a bit out of date. For example it issues warnings that the total number of images on a page is over 100Kb. ???

The link I gave to pingdom was perhaps misleading, you can test any site for free HERE

**pauland** · 04 October 2015, 09:59 AM

Egg that's a great link.

I ran the OPs site and my placeholder site.

My site is not very complex and I have a 1.7MB image that needs optimization. The OPs site is smaller in terms of graphics download size, but a lot of different files, so the number of download requests is way higher and consequently the download was much longer than mine.

I'd advise anyone to use Eggs link - it will identify massive images easily.

Click image for larger version.

Name: clinton.jpeg
Views: 87
Size: 24.7 KB
ID: 110392

Click image for larger version.

Name: ipauland.jpeg
Views: 93
Size: 25.9 KB
ID: 110393

Added: Now I have an email from creatory.org telling me that my website has performance problems. That's not so great..

**nazf355** · 04 October 2015, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Egg Bramhill

Hi nazf, not going to start a which on-line website optimisation site is the best to use but your link seems to be based on a book first produced in mid 2008 with no further editions. I'd suggest that a seven year old optomisation site is a bit out of date. For example it issues warnings that the total number of images on a page is over 100Kb. ???

The link I gave to pingdom was perhaps misleading, you can test any site for free HERE

I only included it because I couldn't see a free test on the page you originally linked to. Yes it may be a bit out of date, but I use it more for the information it provides rather than the analysis.
ATEOTD my advice remains the same, optimise as much as you can to provide the best user experience.

**pauland** · 04 October 2015, 12:56 PM

Just a heads-up about Eggs link for analysing websites.

The report that page generates looks excellent but be aware that during analysis the site seems to be scrapped for a contact email and the contact for the site will receive an email saying their site has problems.

I haven't seen any warning anywhere about this. I have tried this on three sites and one was Karen's site (sorry Karen) and two were mine. I received two emails directly having run the analysis and they are almost identical in content and purport to come from two different companies. I only have a single email on my sites - I hate to think what it would do if I had multiple email links.

I'm not sure I'll ever use this service again if it results in spam emails.

**nazf355** · 04 October 2015, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by pauland

Just a heads-up about Eggs link for analysing websites.

The report that page generates looks excellent but be aware that during analysis the site seems to be scrapped for a contact email and the contact for the site will receive an email saying their site has problems.

I haven't seen any warning anywhere about this. I have tried this on three sites and one was Karen's site (sorry Karen) and two were mine. I received two emails directly having run the analysis and they are almost identical in content and purport to come from two different companies. I only have a single email on my sites - I hate to think what it would do if I had multiple email links.

I'm not sure I'll ever use this service again if it results in spam emails.

Where on your site is your e-mail address?