Image size quandry

[Lynnzer]

My sites have a large number of fashion pictures to show on the 3 website variant sizes of 1280, 485 and 768px.
I can't help but wonder that when I import those images onto the 1280px variant and use them on the others, that it affects page loading speed significantly.
When, lets say, a picture on the 1280 page is clicked on, it enlarges (or I intend to allow it to) to an 800px size.
Of course the smaller variants are using the same image so it seems to me that this is wasteful, but to resize each image to the correct size as required for each variant will take me weeks of work. I use Adobe Photoshop and "Export" (Save for web - Legacy) to do the resizing.
Is there a simpler way?
I also seem to think that even though I add the Alt image text, that a Google search that throws up an image from the site index_htm_files folder such as, lets say a picture with the alt image as Antonio 2345, has been renamed as 777248 or 777248@2x.jpg. I'm guessing this will result in a poor Google search result for anyone specifically looking for Antonio 2345. And why 2 images anyway? Perhaps for the image that's sized on clicking on it?

Does the use of the Optimise All Images, or Optimise Photo do much to help the situation? I presume they can't actually resize to the width size required ie 350px or 500px, but just reduces the image size in respect to the clarity of each picture.

Is anyone aware of Google's take on this situation, and also does anyone know how to rename each file in the index_htm_files folder to the correct name without having to start from scratch with building the site?
This seems to be a major problem.
I know that when I used MS Frontpage many years ago that anyone searching for a specific style in Google Images always had those from my site included. It doesn't happen at all nowadays.

If this really is affecting the Google search results, this is something that would be best addressed by a modification to the Xara code on the site construction so that true image names are save in the index_htm_files folder.

I'm still working on the site at present and have had to put it out for now until I can update various things on it so if you care to look it's at www.motherofthebrideoutfits.co

The season for mother of the bride outfits is fast approaching with new deliveries starting to come in right now so I need to be able to get Google recognition as quickly as possible.

[gwpriester]

I can't answer most of these questions. But Optimize All Images does not effect the images on the page, they export at 96dpi and if you have ticked Retina Image in web properties then 192dpi as well.

The primary reason for Optimize All Images is to make your computer more efficient when working with a lot of images in a document. If you have a lot of images and let's say the average image file size is 1MB this can start to use up a lot of system resources. So by reducing the images to the actual publish size, the in theory Xara should run faster.

[pauland]

a picture with the alt image as Antonio 2345, has been renamed as 777248 or 777248@2x.jpg. I'm guessing this will result in a poor Google search result for anyone specifically looking for Antonio 2345. And why 2 images anyway? Perhaps for the image that's sized on clicking on it?

The @2x file is a higher-resolution image for people ( like me ) that have high-resolution screens. If you don't have these @2x images available then on these high-resolution screens the images will look a little fuzzy.

I took a look at a few of your products and in the larger magnified view they look a little soft because they aren't @2x resolution in the slideshow.

The use of red underlined text and blue text doesn't give your website a classy look. Stick to black. I wish the website copy had copy that was more about the target market than about what you do - for example "Whether you are a parent of the bride or the groom, we are here to make you look your best on that most important day and compliment the bride or groom, knowing that your outfit on the day has been chosen with love and care."

[Initiostar]

lets say a picture with the alt image as Antonio 2345, has been renamed as 777248 or 777248@2x.jpg.

Where you want to give the image a meaningful name you can use the Name Gallery and add "filename=Antonio 2345. The original image and its optimised version will then appear on export with the name you have given it.

My sites have a large number of fashion pictures to show on the 3 website variant sizes of 1280, 485 and 768px

Were you to use 'scale-to-fit-width', (IMO) you would not need the middle variant. From my recollection of an earlier conversation, each collection gallery should be a separate page. If performance were to be an issue, you can make each collection gallery a separate document and call that document (each gallery) from a link in your main document. That way you could have a slimmer master document and separate documents for each collection gallery.

Gary

[Acorn]

Xara's approach to naming images is awkward and is being reviewed.

In the meantime to "improve" SEO, take the Antonio 2345 image and in the Names gallery set the image Name as filename="Antonio 2345". I would do this to improve maintenance as Xara then would not rename is to nnnnn.jpg at every update, saving upload effort. One SEO possible benefit might be the churn of lots of image changes but personally I would focus on getting a clean site. Do include Alt Text that is a bit more meaningful for Antonio 2345; by all means use Antonio 2345 but add a description (like eBay).

I would avoid the use of Image > Photo Pop-up and instead use Pop-up Layers. This keeps the newly minted filename and allows Antonio%202345@2.jpg to be used, the higher resolution image.

If you use Optimise Images on the design page then the change will affect your current pop-ups and make them "fuzzy"; use pop-up layers instead.

Do not muck around with different sizes for Variants. Xara rolls all the Variant code for a page into one file. The largest image size is downloaded once and used many times, which is a trivial timing exercise.

Acorn

[pauland]

Gary's screenshot shows some anomalies in the images in the slideshow.

[gwpriester]

In case you missed this, https://www.talkgraphics.com/showthr...c-image-naming Xara is considering changing the image file naming to retain the image name. You can vote your preference.

[Lynnzer]

The @2x file is a higher-resolution image for people ( like me ) that have high-resolution screens. If you don't have these @2x images available then on these high-resolution screens the images will look a little fuzzy.

I took a look at a few of your products and in the larger magnified view they look a little soft because they aren't @2x resolution in the slideshow.

The use of red underlined text and blue text doesn't give your website a classy look. Stick to black. I wish the website copy had copy that was more about the target market than about what you do - for example "Whether you are a parent of the bride or the groom, we are here to make you look your best on that most important day and compliment the bride or groom, knowing that your outfit on the day has been chosen with love and care."

Noted on textual colouring. Will implement.
Also plagiarising the marketing example, Thanks

[behzad]

I would like Xara to allow us not to give it permission to optimize the images, meaning I optimize it in photoshop and xara simply places my image on the web page.
That is it. How hard is that Xara?

[Acorn]

I would like Xara to allow us not to give it permission to optimize the images, meaning I optimize it in photoshop and xara simply places my image on the web page.
That is it. How hard is that Xara?

I have a 3088 x 4128 pixel, 72dpi, image. If I drag and drop onto a web page, I get the dreaded " (Optimised)" added to the filename and the dimensions drop to 1436 x 1920 px.

When importing high resolution photos (anything above 1920 pixels either wide or high) into a web document, Xara Designer Pro X automatically resizes the photo down to HD screen size without asking you if you want to import a lower resolution version. For a web document, even at the reduced size, there should be more than enough resolution in your photos for high quality results on your website, so it's rarely necessary to import digital camera images at full resolution for web use.

This also applies to Presentations.

My "trick" is to drop the image onto a Blank photo template as you don't get asked if you want to keep the original as is expected on Print documents and Animations.

It is another of those Xara things where the guidance is partial and differs from the explanation.

As an aside, drag your image with Ctrl+drag onto the Page and it is added in as your Page background, aligned Top-Centre.
Do the same onto the Pasteboard.

My proposal would be Shift-Drag to retain original dimensions as this meta-key is not currently used.

Acorn