Optimization of files

[(PSD) Sergiy]

Hello folks, long time it was since my last posting, glad to see you all back

I havent really worked a lot with Photoshop and Image Ready for the last half year, i didnt lost my skills, but i definetely forgot how to Optimize Web Pages.
Below, there is Design i came up with today (all of the images i found on google.com, they are all recent). Ok, here is the thing, i have this page and its 67KB without slices or anything, and i know that it is to much for the HTML version, can you please tell me what should i configure in Photoshop or Image Ready to make it smaller, and what is the standart limit of the Web page in kilobates?
Thanks 8))

 

[(PSD) Sergiy]

serge

 

[Joy Foraker]

I never heard of a standard suggested size, people seem to focus more on what they want and slicing usually gets you there. Some people use a loading bar to help people wait.

Your file size sounds small to me.

Maybe others here have a better idea about this.

 

[(PSD) Sergiy]

serge

Thanks Joy,
You see, people who will be visiting this site the most, are foreighn people with 28.8 - 56.6 KB Modems, they need to load the pages really fast and i`m not an expert of creating a low size Web Sites, atleast all i wanted to know is the recommended size of the page in KB.
But, anyway thanks for help.

 

[Joy Foraker]

Ahaaaaa with a modem, sorry I couldn't help you. :{ hopefully someone will come along with an answer for you.

I just remember when I used a modum I accepted the loading times and was prepared to wait. :\

 

[(PSD) Sergiy]

Serge

I just sliced the Site, and now its takes about 91.0 KB, is that size is going to be okey for 56KB users?

 

[Joy Foraker]

Sounds very small to me. You could ask users of 56K how its downloading for them --at least until you feel confident.

 

[Joy Foraker]

Hey look what I found in a forum - I stand corrected looks like its in the 40 to 50 kb range- keep squeezing:

Look at what is called "page weight". That's the total size of all the files needed to render the page.
1. HTML file itself plus any includes
2. All image files (only count each one once, even if it's used more than once)
3. External CSS files
4. External JS files

If you can keep total page weight in the 40 to 50 kb range, then you're in the sweet spot for dial up users.

As you've guessed, images are often the prime offender. Using a good optimizer such as Adobe's imageready makes a big difference. It also helps to crop unneccesary parts of the image. Make the right choice between .png, .jpg and .gif - and even more, consider whether the images would work well if just a bit smaller.

For instance, if an image is 100x100, and you can take it to 80x80, you didn't just save 20% of the file fize, you may have saved 36% or more.

 

[(PSD) Sergiy]

Sergiy

Thanks Joy, i`m really impressed that you solved my problem

It s actualy almost exactly what i was looking for, really apreciate it 8))

 

[Joy Foraker]

Sergiy --You are very welcome, we're all here to help each other. It was a good question and deserved as complete an answer as possible.

 

[tfoster]

Just chiming in with my two cents-
I too have heard that 50kb guideline for web pages, but I've been hearing it for several years now. I'm starting to wonder if it's time to rethink that limit and other used-to-be-givens about designing web sites. With the increasing use of DSL, modems, and the increasing performance of today's entry level systems, I'm thinking you could start upping the minimal standards.
A lot of that will have to do with the purpose of the site. If it's a B2B site then I certainly think you have a lot more leeway. If it's a consumer site then you'd probably want to be more concerned, especially if the audience would not typically be on the cutting edge of technology (e.g., an older audience, casual computer users, etc.)
I still keep to the minimums as a matter of habit (760 x 420 live areas, etc.), but I'm willing to push the envelope occassionally (especially on business oriented sites).
Of course, there's also the whole counterargument of preparing sites so that they can be interpreted by smaller, newer forms of technology (cell phones, etc.)-sigh. (not anxious to start a CSS thread here )
It IS a good question (the age old question!!), which unfortunately gets harder and harder to answer!
I'm going to go design a brochure now...(ah, the good ol' days)

 

[Joy Foraker]

tfoster - Thanks for chimming in. Opinions from members are always welcome AUK

Some webdesigners are designing sites for countries outside USA that only have modems and the service quality is not consistant. I have friends in Iran and Syria ---DSL is not available at all. And the pipe line into those countries is small, I think Iran is 128kbs. Viewers just don't want to wait the long load times and risk getting disconnected.

Site weight is a good thing to have in mind when you are designing for any of those countries.

--Joy

 

[tfoster]

Understood-and certainly there are instances closer to home where you'd need to be mindful of page weight. For instance, I do a site for a non-profit company that provides computer and office education for people with disabilities-often from poor neighborhoods. So a portion of the web site audience is the students and potential students (and their families). And a good number of them are probably on dial up so we are very mindful to design the site accordingly.
On the other hand, I also do a site for a software developer that sells to Fortune 500 companies (and the techies that work there), so we are able to take advantage of Flash elements, larger page loads, etc., since we know that the customers have high speed access and all the bells and whistles.
In the end it's all about understanding your audience-no different than the world of print in that regard! So it's hard to make blanket statements (not saying you were, just that it's easy for a book or a lecturer to distill a complex subject down to one or two little nuggets!), it's easy to sometimes lose site of that.

 

[Joy Foraker]

t foster