Results 51 to 75 of 152

  1. Post
    #51
    LiQuid.Ace wrote:
    Na should definitely be picking on the images

    i wouldn't bother for 1.6MB tbh

  2. Post
    #52
    suntoucher wrote:
    Why did you even join GP?

    Your site would have been ripped apart for like five comments then the thread would have died.

    Because you're here it's now two pages and no one is feeling any better about it, and you're not here to make changes. So I'm struggling to work out why this thread is still going.

    It's similar to the Streisand effect, your defense and attempt to convince us we're wrong with no desire to take feedback is making us dig deeper into it which is just digging a deeper of hole where no one leaves happy with the website and its direction.
    As i explained above, images cannot be compressed because the images are required by the higher res screens. And with NZ network speed is more than enough to server the content. That's why I said, ignored

  3. Post
    #53
    magebinary wrote:
    Please don't pick on the images. The images are gziped so it's technically compressed. And all large images are lazy-loaded............
    Hmm I think you may have a misconception as to how gzip works. In the context of a website, works well for text based files such as CSS and JSS but doesn't work well for binary files such as images. For this compression/resizing is the way to go.

  4. Post
    #54
    sorceror wrote:
    i wouldn't bother for 1.6MB tbh
    That doesn't even include the carousel images, 1MB could be saved on the ducky banner image alone.

  5. Post
    #55
    Stasis wrote:
    Seriously? Yeesh.

    Asking for feedback then ignoring it, nice.

    You've essentially had the things you need to resolve handed to your on a silver platter, you can slap it away if you want but the main people that suffer for the naivety are the client and the clients customers.

    \_(ツ)_/
    We know all these stuff before we even pushed the site live. Not every scaning tool is saying that right things now days. The speed score is low is because of high res images and we do not want to compress them so we have enough bandwidth to server them fast and very fast.

  6. Post
    #56
    suntoucher wrote:
    Why did you even join GP?

    Your site would have been ripped apart for like five comments then the thread would have died.

    Because you're here it's now two pages and no one is feeling any better about it, and you're not here to make changes. So I'm struggling to work out why this thread is still going.

    It's similar to the Streisand effect, your defense and attempt to convince us we're wrong with no desire to take feedback is making us dig deeper into it which is just digging a deeper of hole where no one leaves happy with the website and its direction.
    Hey we have made lots of changes today based on you guys feedback. Please don't understand me wrong. We already have strategies for big images and compressing it is just not our preference.

    I'm here to listen to any feedbacks

  7. Post
    #57
    Markuchi wrote:
    I think its good, we now all know what company to avoid and advise against.
    I think a bad company would never care about their clients and at least we do You are the judge

    - - - Updated - - -

    BURN_BABY wrote:
    That doesn't even include the carousel images, 1MB could be saved on the ducky banner image alone.
    what about 4k screens? Add in another image?

  8. Post
    #58
    You can use responsive web techniques to serve appropriate images are different viewports, as well as putting images through compression tools such as imageoptim. This stuff is basic web development not rocket science.

    E.g. taking this image from the banner https://www.playtech.co.nz/media/ban...b-original.png (623kb) and putting it through tinypng saves 70% bringing it down to 149KB. Compression does not always mean loss of quality.

  9. Post
    #59
    Ok lets forget about size of the images but just look at the images you are actually loading.
    Many of them you dont use even though you load them in the background.

    As an example when you load the main page you also load https://www.playtech.co.nz/media/cat.../312869_1_.jpg in the background. Where is this used?

  10. Post
    #60
    Our guys logged a ticket 14th about the static assets oversize

    I think we probably should sort it for all menu (SHOP) images.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot from 2019-03-25 15-22-02.png 
Views:	63 
Size:	220.8 KB 
ID:	225601

    - - - Updated - - -

    Markuchi wrote:
    Ok lets forget about size of the images but just look at the images you are actually loading.
    Many of them you dont use even though you load them in the background.

    As an example when you load the main page you also load https://www.playtech.co.nz/media/cat.../312869_1_.jpg in the background. Where is this used?
    These are being used atm. It's in the menu. Please see my above comment.

  11. Post
    #61
    The Defragger wrote:
    You can use responsive web techniques to serve appropriate images are different viewports, as well as putting images through compression tools such as imageoptim. This stuff is basic web development not rocket science.

    E.g. taking this image from the banner https://www.playtech.co.nz/media/ban...b-original.png (623kb) and putting it through tinypng saves 70% bringing it down to 149KB. Compression does not always mean loss of quality.
    Yea not supported in older IE and some mobile browsers

  12. Post
    #62
    The Defragger wrote:
    You can use responsive web techniques to serve appropriate images are different viewports, as well as putting images through compression tools such as imageoptim. This stuff is basic web development not rocket science.

    E.g. taking this image from the banner https://www.playtech.co.nz/media/ban...b-original.png (623kb) and putting it through tinypng saves 70% bringing it down to 149KB. Compression does not always mean loss of quality.
    BTW, we are compressing all images with imagemaic from the script level. We also have openresty in the rate (from the web server level). We have pretty much full controls for all images before the content is servered to the users.

  13. Post
    #63
    The Defragger wrote:
    You can use responsive web techniques to serve appropriate images are different viewports, as well as putting images through compression tools such as imageoptim. This stuff is basic web development not rocket science.

    E.g. taking this image from the banner https://www.playtech.co.nz/media/ban...b-original.png (623kb) and putting it through tinypng saves 70% bringing it down to 149KB. Compression does not always mean loss of quality.
    See https://caniuse.com/#search=srcset
    https://caniuse.com/#search=picture

  14. Post
    #64
    nzbleach wrote:
    Looks like they dropped their premium web developer for a shopify one.

    Cheesus
    We were the developers who built their last site too BTW

  15. Post
    #65
    In cases where a feature is not supported in browsers, there are techniques such as graceful degradation and/or polyfilling that can be used to implement solutions. In this case, browsers that don't support srcset will gracefully fallback to using the value provided via src, so lack of support for older-browsers shouldn't really affect the implementation too much. In web development, it is possible (and recommended) to optimise for the majority which I will make an assumption here are mainly on Chromium/Webkit based browsers i.e Chrome and Safari as well as equivalent modern mobile browsers.

    Overall there are a number of techniques that can be implemented to improve performance and accessibility of websites. Its up to you to understand these techniques, the needs of your users and choose where you spend time/money on. A number of issues raised here in this thread are quick wins to improve performance of your site as well as give users a quicker/better experience that costs them less, especially for those who access your site via mobile using mobile data.

  16. Post
    #66
    magebinary wrote:
    These are being used atm. It's in the menu. Please see my above comment.
    I see, you can optimise that greatly. Those images are so large for a menu. Its more than half of the total download coming from the menu alone.
    Also you are loading those images in the mobile site even though they are not used.

  17. Post
    #67
    Markuchi wrote:
    I see, you can optimise that greatly. Those images are so large for a menu. Its more than half of the total download coming from the menu alone.
    Also you are loading those images in the mobile site even though they are not used.
    Yes agreed. These part are client controled contents. We'll implement the image resize support here.

  18. Post
    #68
    magebinary wrote:
    We were the developers who built their last site too BTW
    It's just taking too long to find shit man

  19. Post
    #69
    The Defragger wrote:
    In cases where a feature is not supported in browsers, there are techniques such as graceful degradation and/or polyfilling that can be used to implement solutions. In this case, browsers that don't support srcset will gracefully fallback to using the value provided via src, so lack of support for older-browsers shouldn't really affect the implementation too much. In web development, it is possible (and recommended) to optimise for the majority which I will make an assumption here are mainly on Chromium/Webkit based browsers i.e Chrome and Safari as well as equivalent modern mobile browsers.

    Overall there are a number of techniques that can be implemented to improve performance and accessibility of websites. Its up to you to understand these techniques, the needs of your users and choose where you spend time/money on. A number of issues raised here in this thread are quick wins to improve performance of your site as well as give users a quicker/better experience that costs them less, especially for those who access your site via mobile using mobile data.
    Yea agree but it all comes down to the ROI. Yes there tweeks will help the client but in the meantime, it will cost the client as well. Sometimes, it's better to invest the money into the features that makes money or save time.

    We are doing the hosting for PT too and we have huge bandwidth in our datacenters and also partnered with cloudflare. The CDN network is pretty much fixed cost no matter how much traffic you use.

    - - - Updated - - -

    nzbleach wrote:
    It's just taking too long to find shit man
    You mean finding a product?

  20. Post
    #70
    I'm surprised to see so much conversation about 'high res images'

    Am I the only one on a 1440p screen getting served low res, pixelated images?

    Even @ work on 1080p the mini banners are noticeably lower res than the rest of the page with blurry text.

    Even the Playtech logo in top left hand corner has visible pixels, 'technology at play' is fuzzy etc.

    To say that these are 4K images seems pretty far fetched lol.

  21. Post
    #71
    iRoN wrote:
    I'm surprised to see so much conversation about 'high res images'

    Am I the only one on a 1440p screen getting served low res, pixelated images?

    Even @ work on 1080p the mini banners are noticeably lower res than the rest of the page with blurry text.

    Even the Playtech logo in top left hand corner has visible pixels, 'technology at play' is fuzzy etc.
    Can you please post a screenshot of what are you seeing?

  22. Post
    #72
    magebinary wrote:
    Can you please post a screenshot of what are you seeing?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	playtech.jpg 
Views:	90 
Size:	151.6 KB 
ID:	225602

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	playtech logo.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	8.8 KB 
ID:	225603

    The ASUS and the Ryzen adds are the worst offenders - all but the largest text is quite blurry/difficult to read. You'll also note the frames still aren't containing the "full" banner as the sides are cut off - this is at 1080P 16:9 fullscreen on Chrome. The Playtech logo itself isn't sharp, edges look fuzzy and I can see the pixel outlines in the white Playtech text and on the outline of the playtech square logo, making the rounded edge jagged.

    Comparing the above images to something like the below, the below is relatively crisp - even the smallest "Ts&Cs apply" text is legible without me having to squint or move closer to the monitor.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	pbtech promo.jpg 
Views:	74 
Size:	96.9 KB 
ID:	225604

  23. Post
    #73
    magebinary wrote:
    I think a bad company would never care about their clients and at least we do You are the judge

    what about 4k screens? Add in another image?
    Look at your Google Analytics, how much of your userbase actually use 4k screens? You design your site around the tech the majority of your users have, it's not rocket science.

  24. Post
    #74
    website looks shit on my 5120x2160 resolution, can you please fix website?

  25. Post
    #75
    BURN_BABY wrote:
    Look at your Google Analytics, how much of your userbase actually use 4k screens? You design your site around the tech the majority of your users have, it's not rocket science.
    this

    i would expect 1080p to be the most prevalent resolution