is it my site or my browser?

[SFB]

ok in opera i cant view my site. it just a blank page but in firefox and IE my site works just fine. so I want to know what happens to other people that view my site in opera. http://snowforts.ath.cx

[reportingsjr]

I had the same type of thing happen to my web page when viewing in IE, all because of a little javascript error (wasnt an error.. just ie -.-).

[SFB]

I had the same type of thing happen to my web page when viewing in IE, all because of a little javascript error (wasnt an error.. just ie -.-).

well whats odd about it is that my site jsut stoped working. i didnt change anything. I dont use javascript so that cant be the problem

[aspnetguy]

works fine in Opera...looks the same as FF and IE must be your install of Opera that is wonky

[SFB]

works fine in Opera...looks the same as FF and IE must be your install of Opera that is wonky

i guess it must be. its odd that it would just stop

[aspnetguy]

just unistall it and re-install...see if that helps

[SFB]

just unistall it and re-install...see if that helps

installed 9.01 insted of 9.0 works!EDIT: humm now it takes 33 seconds to load my page. it seems like something is still wrong.

[dorothy]

installed 9.01 insted of 9.0 works!EDIT: humm now it takes 33 seconds to load my page. it seems like something is still wrong.

Yes, Your images. Original sizes are little bigger than showing. Plus in my opinion, file sizes are big too.dorothy

[SFB]

Yes, Your images. Original sizes are little bigger than showing. Plus in my opinion, file sizes are big too.dorothy

lol the problem is fixed now and it wasnt my images. normaly my site loads in under 3 seconds (for me). i have removed the images from the home page a while ago but they have returned by request of my visitors. i suppose that i could consider making the actual image smaller.

[justsomeguy]

One problem is that you are using the original images as thumbnails and resizing them in the img tag. That means you have a 61kb thumbnail on your page. You should resize the images in an image editing program and save the smaller thumbnails, an image that size only needs to be 5k, not 61. You can still link to the larger image, but if you use the full-size image for the thumbnail, you are just wasting bandwidth.

[SFB]

One problem is that you are using the original images as thumbnails and resizing them in the img tag. That means you have a 61kb thumbnail on your page. You should resize the images in an image editing program and save the smaller thumbnails, an image that size only needs to be 5k, not 61. You can still link to the larger image, but if you use the full-size image for the thumbnail, you are just wasting bandwidth.

lol that was a thumbnail of the original image. that was 10% of the original size. i think the full image that i put on the web was about 60% of the original image. ok so does anyone know of a good free program to edit images. i was using microsoft photo editor but that seems to make a low quality image at a large file size. i have flash and google's pisca but those dont seem to do me much good. mabey i am going about this in all the wrong way. how would anyone decrease the filesize. i only want the image to decrease in size (height , width) no more than 50% but i want the filesize to decrease 90% i think, well the final size about 10% of the original(5k not 61)

[joecoolaug]

lol that was a thumbnail of the original image. that was 10% of the original size. i think the full image that i put on the web was about 60% of the original image. ok so does anyone know of a good free program to edit images. i was using microsoft photo editor but that seems to make a low quality image at a large file size. i have flash and google's pisca but those dont seem to do me much good. mabey i am going about this in all the wrong way. how would anyone decrease the filesize. i only want the image to decrease in size (height , width) no more than 50% but i want the filesize to decrease 90% i think, well the final size about 10% of the original(5k not 61)

You're using CSS to resize the images, I see.

<a href='/pictures' style='text-decoration: none;'><img src='/pictures/20052006/thmbs/snowfort6.jpg' style='height: 100px; width: 150px; border: none; float: left;' alt='snow fort' /><img src='/pictures/20052006/thmbs/snowfort8.jpg' style='float: left; height: 100px; width: 150px; border: none; float: left;' alt='snow fort' /><img src='/pictures/20052006/thmbs/snowfort11.jpg' style='height: 100px; width: 150px; border: none; float: left;' alt='snow fort' /></a>

Instead of using CSS, try using plain HTML resizing.

<a href='/pictures' style='text-decoration: none;'><img src='/pictures/20052006/thmbs/snowfort6.jpg' height="100" width="150" style='border: none; float: left;' alt='snow fort' /><img src='/pictures/20052006/thmbs/snowfort8.jpg' height="100" width="150" style='float: left; border: none; float: left;' alt='snow fort' /><img src='/pictures/20052006/thmbs/snowfort11.jpg' height="100" width="150" style='border: none; float: left;' alt='snow fort' /></a>

Or, try deleting the thumbnail specifications alltogether. I see that you haven't resized the images to 150x100 using an image editor yet(as others have suggested). If you resize each of them to exactly 150x100px with the editor(and upload the resized image), you won't need to specify their height and width for the browser to display it as a thumbnail. That should save your browser quite a bit of loading time.After uploading the edited 150x100 images, take the height and width attributes out:

<a href='/pictures' style='text-decoration: none;'><img src='/pictures/20052006/thmbs/snowfort6.jpg' style='border: none; float: left;' alt='snow fort' /><img src='/pictures/20052006/thmbs/snowfort8.jpg' style='float: left; border: none; float: left;' alt='snow fort' /><img src='/pictures/20052006/thmbs/snowfort11.jpg' style='border: none; float: left;' alt='snow fort' /></a>

[aspnetguy]

why use html to resize the images...that method has been depreciated.

[SFB]

why use html to resize the images...that method has been depreciated.

I heard that if you dont spesify the size of the image it actually takes longer to load even if the size you are telling it is the same size the image is. I will get to resizing those images if someone can tell me a way to resize them that will bring the filesize down more significantly as well.

[SFB]

the images are resized. now everyone can be happy i didnt see any significant change in loading time though

[joecoolaug]

why use html to resize the images...that method has been depreciated.

I didn't know that.

I heard that if you dont spesify the size of the image it actually takes longer to load even if the size you are telling it is the same size the image is. I will get to resizing those images if someone can tell me a way to resize them that will bring the filesize down more significantly as well.

Well, so much for my suggestions .You can simply use MS Paint to resize it. If you have better image editing software, then use it; just use the editor's built-in resizing tool.EDIT: Oops. We posted at the same time .

[joecoolaug]

lol that was a thumbnail of the original image. that was 10% of the original size. i think the full image that i put on the web was about 60% of the original image. ok so does anyone know of a good free program to edit images. i was using microsoft photo editor but that seems to make a low quality image at a large file size. i have flash and google's pisca but those dont seem to do me much good. mabey i am going about this in all the wrong way. how would anyone decrease the filesize. i only want the image to decrease in size (height , width) no more than 50% but i want the filesize to decrease 90% i think, well the final size about 10% of the original(5k not 61)

This article might help with your issue of file size: http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.a...417087&rl=1 .EDIT: Wait a minute. Did you already accomplish what you wanted with file size reduction, or not?

[SFB]

the images are resized. now everyone can be happy i didnt see any significant change in loading time though

yes i got done what needed to be done. paint is a bad choice. microsoft photo editor is much better for resizing images. one time i opened an image in paint and then saved it about 10 times and it got really blury. I wish i had photoshop.

[aspnetguy]

I heard that if you dont spesify the size of the image it actually takes longer to load even if the size you are telling it is the same size the image is. I will get to resizing those images if someone can tell me a way to resize them that will bring the filesize down more significantly as well.

I was asking joecool cuz he said to use html instead of css...never do that

[justsomeguy]

You can try Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop. PSP is pretty comparable on features (Photoshop does have better algorithms for certain things), but PSP is far cheaper then Photoshop is.http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1047025487586

[dcole.ath.cx]

I think the images are a little blurry... but there okay.

[reportingsjr]

SFB, that will happen no matter what, because you use jpegs. Im not sure why people still use this, it should just be deleted from all lists.. Use .gif or .png if you want file sizes to be reduced and quality to be kept.

[justsomeguy]

JPEG still has much better compression than PNG for larger files. The one problem with PNG is that you cannot control the quality. Different programs will give you different file sizes, but you can't set the level of compression like you can with JPEG. But with 10-20% compression, JPEG still gives pretty decent quality. It is not lossless, but the amount of loss may be imperceptible to a human. It depends on the specific image though, images with a lot of sharp color boundaries will be more lossy then images with more solid colors. JPEG compresses an image by splitting it up into blocks, maybe 8x8 pixel blocks, storing the color of the top-left pixel, and then each other pixel in the block is an offset of the index color. This saves on file size (a lot), but for blocks where there are vastly different colors you will get some loss because the offset doesn't have the same precision as the entire RGB value.

[SFB]

I switched to gifs but i shouldnt have... got to switch back or to png. the gifs i got look like someone colored sand and made an image with it. way less quality and more filesize. mabey i converted them wrong i dont know. if you look in the next probably 5-10 minnutes you will see the poor quality gifs on my home page. EDIT: I left the first image as a gif for now or untill i figure out why my gifs turn out like granular snow at mount kato

[justsomeguy]

The pallete for a GIF image has a maximum of 256 colors, so that's why it is granular. JPEG, on the other hand, and PNG-24, are both 8 bits per channel, with 3 channels for R, G, B. So there are 256 colors per channel, or 16,777,216 colors total.