Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 1:42 PM EST

it is working fine

Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 1:44 PM EST

I'm on modem too but the problem is evident right off. It's not the script, that works fine even in a non IE browser so it must be a cross platform script- that's good!.

Your problem is due to the size of the image files you're using. Even a fast connection might have problems with the size and number of images. If any page loads fast for you at all, it is most likely because the images are already in your browser cache. Clear cache and you'll probably lose the display speed you now are able to get out of that"good" page.

an example and how to fix it.....

http://somerfleck.com/images/Gulfshorebusinesshappy.jpg

uploaded physical dimensions and file size

2300 x2777 px 455 KB

script resizes them to.....

var Book_Image_Width=140;
var Book_Image_Height=225

so first create thumbnail images in an image editor sized to 140x 255. name the new thumbnail image something like Gulfshorebusinesshappy-th.jpg (re sizing- read on further below -something here is not quite right with the display dimensions of your script- not necessarily a problem for your use on the page but should be noted)

AND after creating the thumbs also create more reasonably sized larger images that will open on click of the (new) thumbnail. Remember that the monitor resolution any visitor will be using can and will vary so keep that in mind when sizing the larger images. 800 x600 will most likely be the most common smaller resolution being used.... meaning 800 pixels wide available for display at one tome in the monitor screen. I'd suggest sizing images for this resolution since most visitors will be able to view your larger image without scrolling left to right. Factoring in the space taken up by browser windows- which also varies from browser to browser. 750 -760 pixels wide should be a good size. Let the height default to it's proportion to width so the imageis not distorted. (*your image does not resize to 140x225 as called in your script but will save proportionately as 140 x169. Your script image dimensions will distort the image but may not be too bad as they aren't meant for actual reading anyway. The large image's dimension(s) are the important ones and the large image will display proportionately when the thumb is clicked} Resave the file and reupload it. If you keep the name the same it will destroy your master jpg, but naming it the same will also make a little less editting, as the new "large" will overwrite the even larger image you're using now. You need to upload the thumbnails as well

now take your thumbnail and insert it into the script and also change the a href path to reflect the new larger image if you have changed it's name or location.... so that this....

"images/Breezehumphrey.jpg","https://www.angelfire.com/va/dmsforever/images/Breezehumphrey.jpg"

becomes this... ( this rewrite assumes you've resized and uploaded the large originals and named them exactly as the large image it replaces.

"images/Breezehumphrey-th.jpg","https://www.angelfire.com/va/dmsforever/images/Breezehumphrey.jpg"


the thumbnail will now be in the 15-20KB size so will remove at least 400KB from the load time needed to upload just that one pic. Multiply that by each file you redo and insert as a thumbnail and you're lopping off a heck of a lot of file size for data transfer saving both load time and bandwidth. All the info contained in the larger pic will not slow down the load time of your page and will only display when clicked. resizing to 760 wide should create a file in the neighborhood of 70-90K depending on the jpg compression rate you choose.... but I have to add something else here. These simple 4 color images should not be saved as jpg at all. they don't need the zillions of colors jpg can handle They should be redone ( rescanned as lineart or grayscale) to correct the color and saved as gif. As a color corrected gif even the large images would weigh in at under 20 KB I'd bet.

If all that doesn't make any sense post back. I have posted a thumbnail (link above) redone from one of the very large ones now being used by you and which I targeted in my example above. the thumb comes in at around 15 KB

Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 1:55 PM EST

just saw your private message posted to this blog that did not appear until I logged in to AF to upload your image. Are you still having a problem with what you call CGI? That should have no effect on anything at your site. Just leave it alone if you don't have use for it now. You may later need it. It is meant for special scripts written for CGI or PERL that can add dynamic generation features to a web site (ie the ability for visitors to fill out a form on one of your pages and send it to you through the web page itself)

Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 1:57 PM EST

brain burp ....the thumbnail will now be in the 15-20KB size so will remove at least 400KB from the load time needed to upload just that one pic.

should read....
the thumbnail will now be in the 15-20KB size so will remove at least 400KB from the load time needed to DOWNload just that one pic.

Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 7:36 PM EST

I forgot to say I am using dsl and netscape, they are loading fast and no problem.

Thursday, 9 February 2006 - 11:22 AM EST

I think what you're saying sounds great, but the reason I didn't try to re-size the images was that the only image editor I have on my old computer is Paint, which I don't think can do the job of re-sizing images.

Can it? If it can, I haven't figured it out yet. Can you please advise. I tried posting the images on a seperate page, re-sizing the images in HTML and than saving them to see if they'd then be "minis." It didn't work; the images were still large.

Can you help?

Thursday, 9 February 2006 - 11:40 AM EST

Resizing the images with html doesn't cut down the file size. You need to actually resize them to smaller dimensions in an image editor and reupload them. Using html to display a 500KB pic at 1x1 pixel still means all 500KB of that image must download to display at 1x1. So you need an image editor. Are you sure all you have is Paint? And Paint can rescale them as far as I know (mac user here) Those look like scanned images to me. Didn't some editting software come with the scanner? Use that or download Irfanview, a popular Windows freeware image editor from Irfanview.com. If you have a scanner and still have the pages, rescan as lineart. the file sizes should turn out smaller and may allow you to save them as gif which i think in your situation will produce smaller files than jpg.

try Irfanview

Thursday, 9 February 2006 - 2:49 PM EST

you can do it in Paint, but first check to see if you have the jpeg and other file formats there. Open paint and when you choose to save as: you will see a list of other formats or maybe just .bmp....
mspaint by default only has the bitmap format listed, but if you have installed photo software from scanners or camera's or other types of applications like that, then msPaint picks up those other format options....
but even if the other formats aren't there all you have to do is tag the file name with .jpg extension and it will be saved as such....it should if it doesn't work that way on your computer then use another .app like the free irfanview that cw mentioned.....but try paint first and see what happens....

so if you can use Paint now then to resize an imgage what you need to do is go to 'Image' in the paint menu and choose stretch/skew option form the drop dropdown choices next step you will see fields to change the percent % size of the graphic....
a graphics like yours will have to be sized way down to about 30%-40% or more. the smaller the number the smaller your going to be takeing it too... for instance if you want that one to be your smaller thumbnail one.... here's how:
enter the 30 in both fields for horizontal and vertical....then click ok, the picture will resize if you don't like the size then 'try again' but 'first' choose "undo" from the "edit menu' then try again with anothersamller or larger number etc.. until you have what you want....if you want to know the file size before you save it go to the 'image menu' again and choose attributes.....

when saving choose save as: to a file name of your choice such as myNewImage_small.jpg or choose a format if they are there.....
always keep your master one handy, but name your new smaller ones differntly....

good luck hope this helps
but as cw mentioned, irfanview is very good also.....

Thursday, 9 February 2006 - 11:40 PM EST

About your comments: Thanks very much. I don't own a scanner. I use the one at the local college. I have an old HP computer from Wal-Mart that's about five years old and full of bugs and very slow dial-up. I tried downloading the scaled down image you made for me and posted it. I don't know if the features page loads any faster and frankly I can't see ANY images at all on my computer at home and just have to believe that it works as you've said for now.

I'll try using Paint, since I have that at home and I'm sure the college computer lab does, too. I'll try it out and see if 1)it helps reduce load time and b)it works at all.

Thanks again for the help.

Dave

Friday, 10 February 2006 - 9:47 AM EST

good luck! The thumbnail I made for you loads quickly into your book script but you seem to be missing the other thumbs. Just remember that in order to work- load quickly_ you must have 2 sets of images..

a) true thumbnails, physically scaled down versions of the large images that will expand into view when clicking on the thumbnail. The thumbnails are produced in an image editor and uploaded to your account. I'd suggest naming the thumbnails in a way that makes them immediately recognizable in your account filelist (ie somefilename_th.jpg)

b) the larger images (ie somefilename.jpg). These larger images should all be physically sized in an image editor to reasonable dimensions before uploading. I'd suggest sizing for the smaller resolution monitors like 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768. In 800 x 600 resolution, the visitor will have a maximum width of about 760 pixels available for display in the browser window. Images sized accordingly will not necessitate horizontal scrolling by 800x600 users to view or read the content in the image.

The smaller the physical dimensions of an image AS UPLOADED, the smaller the size of the file in bytes. The smaller the file size, the faster the download time so that your pages render faster. A reasonable page weight for modem is about 100KB of files/page. A page of that weight should completely load in 30 seconds or less on modem.

Friday, 21 July 2023 - 5:20 PM EDT

.NET full stack engineer pay relies upon a few factors: the range of abilities and working experience of the coder and where the expert resides. The experts from your city may be more costly than the reevaluating choice. Be that as it may, assuming you feel alright employing a coder from abroad or even abroad - you will get some extra rewards: lower cost joined with the great of administration.

Friday, 21 July 2023 - 5:21 PM EDT

.NET full stack engineer pay relies upon a few factors: the range of abilities and working experience of the coder and where the expert resides. The experts from your city may be more costly than the reevaluating choice. Be that as it may, assuming you feel alright employing a coder from abroad or even abroad - you will get some extra rewards: lower cost joined with the great of administration.

Thursday, 27 July 2023 - 5:55 AM EDT

.NET full stack engineer pay relies upon a few factors: the range of abilities and working experience of the coder and where the expert resides. The experts from your city may be more costly than the reevaluating choice. Be that as it may, assuming you feel alright employing a coder from abroad or even abroad - you will get some extra rewards: lower cost joined with the great of administration.