When trying to access a web site that I have been working on for a friend, it is coming up about 2 minutes after I type in the name. Other pages that I am accessing are pulling up like they should. Not sure what is going wrong in there. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Web page loading slow 2
- Thread starter dleggett
- Start date
It's because this is not a real friend. Maybe you should ask this person about their motives.
Seriously, with the information you provided, we cannot help you. Your friend's page could be on a far away server. It could be on a slow server. It could be loading just one element from a slow server. There's a multitude of options.
Why don't you:
1. Provide us with the URL so that we can see this slow load times as well.
2. If you cannot do that, describe in detail when the slow load occurs (is it looking for a host, is it loading a script or an image, etc.).
[small]Do something about world cancer today: Comprehensive cancer control information at PACT[/small]
Seriously, with the information you provided, we cannot help you. Your friend's page could be on a far away server. It could be on a slow server. It could be loading just one element from a slow server. There's a multitude of options.
Why don't you:
1. Provide us with the URL so that we can see this slow load times as well.
2. If you cannot do that, describe in detail when the slow load occurs (is it looking for a host, is it loading a script or an image, etc.).
[small]Do something about world cancer today: Comprehensive cancer control information at PACT[/small]
- Thread starter
- #4
Vragabond , sorry about that, the url is It is hosted with yahoo and has been coming up pretty quick in the past. In the last week or so it has slowed down to a crawl.
- Thread starter
- #6
I know this may not be help specifically for a slow site (which it looks like it's already helped or slowed down - or else AdBlocker in Firefox is blocking the java portions here)...
I'm no expert, but just from a design perspective, there are a couple of things I'd think you'd want to change asap:
[ol][li]The flashing "main" links on the top left of the site - at least to me, that just seems like an annoying banner that says "You're the 1,000,000th visitor, click here for a million bucks!" need to go.[ul][li]As a side note to this one, the flashing isn't consistent across pages - if you stop the flashing, you get rid of at least part of the inconsistencies. Also, the animations for the link items, specifically on the "Why Inspect" page do not seem to be consistent. I'd suggest that it's especially better to have NO animations rather than inconsistent ones.[/li][/ul][/li]
[li]White space is good when used correctly, but you've got a big gap at the lower half of the page. I'd move some things around to make better use of that space.[/li][/ol]
On the last option there, it might just be that something isn't loading yet b/c of the original things in this thread. But the first item, those flashing links, unless you just need them for some reason, I'd highly suggest getting rid of them. All I can think when I see them is "headache!"
![[smile]](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif "[smile] [smile]")
I hope my suggestions don't come across as nit-picking or rude, I'm just looking from a technical perspective, and those are a couple of things I'd want different if it were my site.
--
"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me
I'm no expert, but just from a design perspective, there are a couple of things I'd think you'd want to change asap:
[ol][li]The flashing "main" links on the top left of the site - at least to me, that just seems like an annoying banner that says "You're the 1,000,000th visitor, click here for a million bucks!" need to go.[ul][li]As a side note to this one, the flashing isn't consistent across pages - if you stop the flashing, you get rid of at least part of the inconsistencies. Also, the animations for the link items, specifically on the "Why Inspect" page do not seem to be consistent. I'd suggest that it's especially better to have NO animations rather than inconsistent ones.[/li][/ul][/li]
[li]White space is good when used correctly, but you've got a big gap at the lower half of the page. I'd move some things around to make better use of that space.[/li][/ol]
On the last option there, it might just be that something isn't loading yet b/c of the original things in this thread. But the first item, those flashing links, unless you just need them for some reason, I'd highly suggest getting rid of them. All I can think when I see them is "headache!"
I hope my suggestions don't come across as nit-picking or rude, I'm just looking from a technical perspective, and those are a couple of things I'd want different if it were my site.
--
"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me
You might also like to have a go at removing some of the 147 validation errors - see
You might also try
If you want the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first.
'If we're supposed to work in Hex, why have we only got A fingers?'
Drive a Steam Roller
You might also try
If you want the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first.
'If we're supposed to work in Hex, why have we only got A fingers?'
Drive a Steam Roller
But most important, you should optimize your images:
1. You are loading a 2 MB BMP, which is not even a web-safe format. Some browsers load it because it was a popular Windows format. Change this huge file to a couple of KB jpeg and your speed might increase.
2. Optimize other images. I noticed at least one jpeg, which is over 100k large. On the page it is shrunk (via html code), which is not optimal, since the browser still has to download the big picture but users get to see a little one. Re-scale the images before you put them on the web.
3. Finally, most importantly, there is a footer.gif that is being loaded, but the file does not exist. This could well be the core of the delay.
I also received constant javascript errors in IE, but that might've been due to the missing image.
[small]Do something about world cancer today: Comprehensive cancer control information at PACT[/small]
1. You are loading a 2 MB BMP, which is not even a web-safe format. Some browsers load it because it was a popular Windows format. Change this huge file to a couple of KB jpeg and your speed might increase.
2. Optimize other images. I noticed at least one jpeg, which is over 100k large. On the page it is shrunk (via html code), which is not optimal, since the browser still has to download the big picture but users get to see a little one. Re-scale the images before you put them on the web.
3. Finally, most importantly, there is a footer.gif that is being loaded, but the file does not exist. This could well be the core of the delay.
I also received constant javascript errors in IE, but that might've been due to the missing image.
[small]Do something about world cancer today: Comprehensive cancer control information at PACT[/small]
I'm getting ill from that comment about the BMP file. A discouraging experiment just revealed that every browser (not just some) I have on my box supports BMP.
How could the developers of Google Chrome, Safari, Firefox, MSIE, Opera enable such malicious web design with BMP files?! What were they thinking? BMP is useless.
How could the developers of Google Chrome, Safari, Firefox, MSIE, Opera enable such malicious web design with BMP files?! What were they thinking? BMP is useless.
-
1
- #11
BillyRayPreachersSon
Programmer
Malicious? Do grow up. There's nothing malicious about supporting a valid image format.
It might be an old format, but if you really think that browser manufacturers are being malicious by supporting it, you really do live in la-la land.
Dan
Coedit Limited - Delivering standards compliant, accessible web solutions
Dan's Page [blue]@[/blue] Code Couch:
Code Couch Tech Snippets & Info:
Hey, I'm trying to be mature. ![[bigsmile]](/data/assets/smilies/bigsmile.gif "[bigsmile] [bigsmile]")
I think we are missing what is really malicious (and what is intended as humor).
While W3C does not limit image formats, BMP is not a 'valid image format' for the web. We all know this.
Just because you can turn out a light bulb with a shotgun doesn't mean you should.
I think we are missing what is really malicious (and what is intended as humor).
While W3C does not limit image formats, BMP is not a 'valid image format' for the web. We all know this.
Just because you can turn out a light bulb with a shotgun doesn't mean you should.
BillyRayPreachersSon
Programmer
Then it's 'we, except Dan', as 'we' certainly doesn't include me in this case
I agree with the W3C's sentiments that "[!]Examples[/!] of widely recognized image formats [!]include[/!] GIF, JPEG, and PNG". The key words being 'examples' and 'includes' - it is by no means an exhaustive be-all-and-end-all set of image file formats that UA developers cannot deviate from.
But it would be fun trying! ;-)
One thing intrigues me... if you could change what you said, would you rephrase it as 'BMP is not a commonly-used image format for the web', or do you truly believe that bitmaps are not a 'valid' web format, and should have no presence in any HTML document?
Dan
Coedit Limited - Delivering standards compliant, accessible web solutions
Dan's Page [blue]@[/blue] Code Couch:
Code Couch Tech Snippets & Info:
By the simple fact that BMP files are larger than any other more common web image format, only an uneducated individual would use the BMP format in a web page. There are several reasons why even print designers would not use BMP in their work as well.
The BMP file format is not invalid. The use of it in a medium where we strive for small files sizes is invalid. This is what I thought we all knew. Apparently we don't all know this or we simply like to argue nonsense on a slow day at the forums.
I'd be interested in you demonstrating where a BMP file is used effectively in a web page. Perhaps you can share a page that you have created with BMP files? Or are you not so foolish to follow your own belief in the BMP format being valid for web design?
Or perhaps we are operating on different definitions of the word valid.
The BMP file format is not invalid. The use of it in a medium where we strive for small files sizes is invalid. This is what I thought we all knew. Apparently we don't all know this or we simply like to argue nonsense on a slow day at the forums.
I'd be interested in you demonstrating where a BMP file is used effectively in a web page. Perhaps you can share a page that you have created with BMP files? Or are you not so foolish to follow your own belief in the BMP format being valid for web design?
Or perhaps we are operating on different definitions of the word valid.
BillyRayPreachersSon
Programmer
I guess we are, because it is nowhere near the invalid format you say. It is completely valid to use a BMP image as the source for an IMG element.
Perhaps you have mis-understood my sentiments... I am not for one minute saying that I would use it to regularly replace JPG, GIF, or PNG images, because I can use a better / more appropriate file format most of the time.
What I am saying is that it is still a valid format, and there is nothing invalid or malicious (both words you used to describe its use and support) if someone should find themselves needing to use it.
For example, I've seen plenty of questions on the forums here about the use of TIF images in web pages - which less browsers support that BMP images... so clearly there are some cases where people need to use a 'non common' image format.
I don't want people to read this thread and think that because they're using BMP images they are somehow wrong if they may have a genuine reason to use them. And I hope that's the impression most people will have, as well as the fact that there are better / more appropriate file formats should they have a choice in the matter.
Dan
Coedit Limited - Delivering standards compliant, accessible web solutions
Dan's Page [blue]@[/blue] Code Couch:
Code Couch Tech Snippets & Info:
I may can think of an example of when a BMP format would be better than a JPG or other compressed format, but I wouldn't think it'd be best used within say a "normal" web page. It could be, but probably not the best use.
What I'm thinking of is if say someone is an artist, and they want to make their full work available in an true color, uncompressed image format - say after someone clicks on a thumbnail of the image. Seems I may have seen that done before, actually, on a site where they made pictures of mountains or whatever free for use as desktop backgrounds.
It's probably arguable, whether it's even worth using a BMP, as it'd be difficult to see the difference vs. a high-quality JPG file, or at least to me it would.
But anywho... back to the OP ordeal...![[wink]](/data/assets/smilies/wink.gif "[wink] [wink]")
dleggett,
Did you get anything cleared up the other day? Do you need any further advice/suggestions so far?
--
"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me
What I'm thinking of is if say someone is an artist, and they want to make their full work available in an true color, uncompressed image format - say after someone clicks on a thumbnail of the image. Seems I may have seen that done before, actually, on a site where they made pictures of mountains or whatever free for use as desktop backgrounds.
It's probably arguable, whether it's even worth using a BMP, as it'd be difficult to see the difference vs. a high-quality JPG file, or at least to me it would.
But anywho... back to the OP ordeal...
dleggett,
Did you get anything cleared up the other day? Do you need any further advice/suggestions so far?
--
"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me
I'd like you to post what genuine reason one would have to use a BMP graphic in a web page. I'm open to learning like everyone else.
I truly think there is a problem with the perception of the word valid. You might be thinking the same kind of 'valid' that is used to 'validate' the HTML.
sound; just; well-founded; producing the desired result; effective; logical; well grounded
Dumping a bloated BMP file in a web page does not seem to 'produce a desired result' or be 'well-founded' so this is why a web designer finds BMP 'not to be valid'. The mention of malice was the humor. I am sure browser developers were not willfully handing a beer to an alcoholic. We're really dealing with ignorance in choosing the ideal filetype (which is easily cured with education).
traingamer
Programmer
Spamjim,
If a user wants to display a picture, and the picture they have is a BMP, and they don't know how to (or why they should) convert it, when they put it on their page, and it actually displays, then that is the desired result.
It is very likely not the optimum result, but it's what they are trying to do.
That being said, I cannot think of any reason to use one, because I know that it is the wrong tool for the job and know numerous ways to convert it. Some people do not.
Greg
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Kierkegaard
If a user wants to display a picture, and the picture they have is a BMP, and they don't know how to (or why they should) convert it, when they put it on their page, and it actually displays, then that is the desired result.
It is very likely not the optimum result, but it's what they are trying to do.
That being said, I cannot think of any reason to use one, because I know that it is the wrong tool for the job and know numerous ways to convert it. Some people do not.
Greg
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Kierkegaard
BillyRayPreachersSon
Programmer
spamjim said:
You seem to have ignored this part of my previous post:
me said:
How would I know what genuine reason someone else would have when I'm not them, and I wouldn't do it that way personally?
spamjim said:
Surely if the desired result is to display an image (which happens to be a BMP), then this [!]is[/!] producing the desired result?
spamjim said:
I couldn't agree more. As I've been saying - I wouldn't choose the BMP format either... it was just your insistence that it was an invalid format (when clearly it is not, otherwise the browsers wouldn't display it at all) that got my goat.
Dan
Coedit Limited - Delivering standards compliant, accessible web solutions
Dan's Page [blue]@[/blue] Code Couch:
Code Couch Tech Snippets & Info:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question