Please have a look at my website
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:07 pm
- Location: property South west Corner of the dordogne St Meard de Gurcon. Me East Yorkshire
- Contact:
Please have a look at my website
would be interested to receive any comments
on my website
The main thing we are trying to sell is quality we would like to sell to all adult couples but the main market seems to be families
I would like comments on speed of downloading navigability content etc
I am a novice website creator and started at htmlgoodies a site I can recommend
Then I have done some updating with word ugh
and now have dreamweaver
http://www.jarrige.co.uk
Thanks
on my website
The main thing we are trying to sell is quality we would like to sell to all adult couples but the main market seems to be families
I would like comments on speed of downloading navigability content etc
I am a novice website creator and started at htmlgoodies a site I can recommend
Then I have done some updating with word ugh
and now have dreamweaver
http://www.jarrige.co.uk
Thanks
Last edited by keithfenton on Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:07 pm
- Location: property South west Corner of the dordogne St Meard de Gurcon. Me East Yorkshire
- Contact:
- Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
Keith,
When you are testing your pages directly from your hard drive images will load very quickly. On the other hand, a visitor to your site, particularly when working with a dial-up modem, could find that it takes up to a couple of minutes for the images to load. This is down to the actual file sizes. Even if you have reduced the display size of the images they are still transmitted in full size. You need to reduce the image file size by reducing the resolution of the images, i.e. reducing the pixels per inch. A setting of 72 ppi is ideal for images which are to be transmitted over the Internet and displayed on a PC monitor and for most purposes they should be in JPEG format.
To do this you will need some graphic software. Something like Adobe Photoshop or JASC Paint Shop Pro would do beautifully. If you are using Front Page I think you will find that Microsoft Image Composer in included. Otherwise, why not have a look for downloadable freeware/shareware on the following Website:-
http://download.com
How to do it? To keep it simple, you open an image file and play with it as much as you like. When finished Save a Copy using a new name and specifying the pixel size, the physical dimensions and the file type. Then use the new image file in your webpage.
Good luck.
Alan
When you are testing your pages directly from your hard drive images will load very quickly. On the other hand, a visitor to your site, particularly when working with a dial-up modem, could find that it takes up to a couple of minutes for the images to load. This is down to the actual file sizes. Even if you have reduced the display size of the images they are still transmitted in full size. You need to reduce the image file size by reducing the resolution of the images, i.e. reducing the pixels per inch. A setting of 72 ppi is ideal for images which are to be transmitted over the Internet and displayed on a PC monitor and for most purposes they should be in JPEG format.
To do this you will need some graphic software. Something like Adobe Photoshop or JASC Paint Shop Pro would do beautifully. If you are using Front Page I think you will find that Microsoft Image Composer in included. Otherwise, why not have a look for downloadable freeware/shareware on the following Website:-
http://download.com
How to do it? To keep it simple, you open an image file and play with it as much as you like. When finished Save a Copy using a new name and specifying the pixel size, the physical dimensions and the file type. Then use the new image file in your webpage.
Good luck.
Alan
Dordogne also.
Hi Keith,
Just to say your web site looks lovely but only four of the pictures open for me. I have a Mac so I don't know whether that makes a difference. Anyway, I will be needing to make a web site shortly as we are renovating a property between St.Foy and Eymet which I don't think is too far from you. I shall watch yours with interest.
Isobel
Just to say your web site looks lovely but only four of the pictures open for me. I have a Mac so I don't know whether that makes a difference. Anyway, I will be needing to make a web site shortly as we are renovating a property between St.Foy and Eymet which I don't think is too far from you. I shall watch yours with interest.
Isobel
great advice about picture size
Hi Alan,
Most helpful information about how to resize pictures. I think you are quite close to my place also.
Isobel
Most helpful information about how to resize pictures. I think you are quite close to my place also.
Isobel
- Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:07 pm
- Location: property South west Corner of the dordogne St Meard de Gurcon. Me East Yorkshire
- Contact:
Alan thanks for your reply
I have adobe photoshop and had looked at resizing the image but had not noticed the box at the bottom that gave the ppi
your info about 77 ppi is very useful
I have now resized most of my photos and will try and get them uploaded later today
any advice about ftp programmes
I have cute ftp but it doesn't allways work
thanks alot keith
I have adobe photoshop and had looked at resizing the image but had not noticed the box at the bottom that gave the ppi
your info about 77 ppi is very useful
I have now resized most of my photos and will try and get them uploaded later today
any advice about ftp programmes
I have cute ftp but it doesn't allways work
thanks alot keith
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:07 pm
- Location: property South west Corner of the dordogne St Meard de Gurcon. Me East Yorkshire
- Contact:
- Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
Keith,
For FTP I use WS_FTP Pro. It is very effective and the Home Version is not expensive. You can even download an evaluation copy and give it a try. Their web site is:-
http://www.Ipswitch.com/
Alan
For FTP I use WS_FTP Pro. It is very effective and the Home Version is not expensive. You can even download an evaluation copy and give it a try. Their web site is:-
http://www.Ipswitch.com/
Alan
Keith,
Kudos to you for including a floor plan! A lot of people love those details.
Agreed that the pictures should be much smaller. However I'm not sure that the pixels per inch is the thing that matters -- I never have my pictures any different than 72 pixels per inch; it's my understanding that that only matters if you want to print your pictures out. What matters more is the total number of pixels in an image.
In general, I never use pictures that are more than about 600 pixels in height or width, because many people still use 800 x 600 resolution on their monitors and making them scroll to see an image is counterproductive. Besides, anything larger than that takes far too long to load.
In addition, another big way to optimize your pictures for the web is to turn up jpg compression (if your pictures are jpgs). Uncompressed jpg images can be very large, but if you turn up the compression level a bit, you can really bring down the size without sacrificing much in terms of image quality. How to do this depends largely on what image manipulation program you are using, but usually you specify this while saving the image. I'd play around with that a bit.
Otherwise, you have plenty of information and good testimonials!
Kudos to you for including a floor plan! A lot of people love those details.
Agreed that the pictures should be much smaller. However I'm not sure that the pixels per inch is the thing that matters -- I never have my pictures any different than 72 pixels per inch; it's my understanding that that only matters if you want to print your pictures out. What matters more is the total number of pixels in an image.
In general, I never use pictures that are more than about 600 pixels in height or width, because many people still use 800 x 600 resolution on their monitors and making them scroll to see an image is counterproductive. Besides, anything larger than that takes far too long to load.
In addition, another big way to optimize your pictures for the web is to turn up jpg compression (if your pictures are jpgs). Uncompressed jpg images can be very large, but if you turn up the compression level a bit, you can really bring down the size without sacrificing much in terms of image quality. How to do this depends largely on what image manipulation program you are using, but usually you specify this while saving the image. I'd play around with that a bit.
Otherwise, you have plenty of information and good testimonials!
pictures all there
Keith,
All the pictures are instantly there now so whatever you've done has worked brilliantly. Yes, we're just along the road from Ch. Vigiers. Have only been there for a drink so far,not a meal, but I'm sure we will soon.
Isobel
All the pictures are instantly there now so whatever you've done has worked brilliantly. Yes, we're just along the road from Ch. Vigiers. Have only been there for a drink so far,not a meal, but I'm sure we will soon.
Isobel
Hi Keith,
Here are my impressions....
Homepage:
Nice picture but no sales message. I would put above the picture a phrase or two that explains what you are selling and why I should be interested (i.e. what is your main selling point). For example, on one of my ads I use this heading and sub-heading:
Provence rental house at the top of Menerbes
Stunning views from every room (even the walk-in shower)
The first line tells you what it is, the second one tells you why you should care. This is an emotional hook that is intended to get people reading and exploring the site.
The red text on yellow background makes my eyes hurt!
More details page:
I may have said this before - I don't like strong coloured backgrounds and I don't think many web users do either - it makes it hard to read the page.
I would like to see more pictures here, and full size ones, not thumbnails. My first reaction to seeing thumbnails of rooms in the text where their first mention falls was not complimentary. But when you read the text, it works quite nicely. I still think it is the wrong way to do it though. Nice pics should be seen and not thumbnailed.
Is this page a work in progress? There are only 5 pictures and no externals.
The Region:
This is a map showing where you are in France, which is a good thing, but no other pics, which is a bad thing! You need to sell the location as well as the house, so let's see some lovely pics of local attractions. This page should be like a scrapbook of pleasant images and descriptions, which will make people want to come and visit that part of the world.
Technical matters:
Your pics are huge! A monitor only shows 72 dpi so there is no point in exceeding that. As you have Photoshop, you can easily get the ideal balance of bytes and quality. When you size a picture, type 72 into the dpi box. When you've got the dimensions you want, select 'Save for web' (on my version the keyboard shortcut is Alt, F, W.) See this thread for how to optimise pics with this function:
viewtopic.php?t=163
The reason the pics load fast for you is because they are in your computer's cache memory. They will take an age to load for the first time for someone on dial-up. That is also why Izzy is seeing the pics instantly now.
I use Cute FTP and I rate it. I prefer it to WS-FTP which I have also used, because I find the interface simpler. Very occasionally I can’t get connected to my site, which is perhaps the problem you mention, but I think that is down to my site’s server rather than Cute.
Here are my impressions....
Homepage:
Nice picture but no sales message. I would put above the picture a phrase or two that explains what you are selling and why I should be interested (i.e. what is your main selling point). For example, on one of my ads I use this heading and sub-heading:
Provence rental house at the top of Menerbes
Stunning views from every room (even the walk-in shower)
The first line tells you what it is, the second one tells you why you should care. This is an emotional hook that is intended to get people reading and exploring the site.
The red text on yellow background makes my eyes hurt!
More details page:
I may have said this before - I don't like strong coloured backgrounds and I don't think many web users do either - it makes it hard to read the page.
I would like to see more pictures here, and full size ones, not thumbnails. My first reaction to seeing thumbnails of rooms in the text where their first mention falls was not complimentary. But when you read the text, it works quite nicely. I still think it is the wrong way to do it though. Nice pics should be seen and not thumbnailed.
Is this page a work in progress? There are only 5 pictures and no externals.
The Region:
This is a map showing where you are in France, which is a good thing, but no other pics, which is a bad thing! You need to sell the location as well as the house, so let's see some lovely pics of local attractions. This page should be like a scrapbook of pleasant images and descriptions, which will make people want to come and visit that part of the world.
Technical matters:
Your pics are huge! A monitor only shows 72 dpi so there is no point in exceeding that. As you have Photoshop, you can easily get the ideal balance of bytes and quality. When you size a picture, type 72 into the dpi box. When you've got the dimensions you want, select 'Save for web' (on my version the keyboard shortcut is Alt, F, W.) See this thread for how to optimise pics with this function:
viewtopic.php?t=163
The reason the pics load fast for you is because they are in your computer's cache memory. They will take an age to load for the first time for someone on dial-up. That is also why Izzy is seeing the pics instantly now.
I use Cute FTP and I rate it. I prefer it to WS-FTP which I have also used, because I find the interface simpler. Very occasionally I can’t get connected to my site, which is perhaps the problem you mention, but I think that is down to my site’s server rather than Cute.
Paolo
Lay My Hat
Lay My Hat
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:07 pm
- Location: property South west Corner of the dordogne St Meard de Gurcon. Me East Yorkshire
- Contact:
Izzy thanks your comment but afraid Paolo is right I haven't changed it yet
Paolo Thanks for your comments much appreciated
Re title line I have something similar to what you say on all my ads on other websites. As it is sometime since I did this website I think I assumed I had got an opening line on my site aswell
Just goes to show how good it is to get someone else to look at your site
Thumnails I tried to put in pictures alongside the text before but was not able to get it to work so put in thumnails instead
Photos I have now found the save for web button on photoshop and it is brilliant
I used to save photos as jpeg but notice this system saves them as gif size 96k 35secs at 28.8kps
does this mean it will take 35secs to load which still does not seem too fast
Interesting what you say about photos being saved in the cache memory So when I've resized my photos and I ask you to go and see how fast they load now
How will you know if its working as they will now be in your cache as well as Izzys
When writing replies such as this is it possible to look back at the forum without losing what I'm typing
Or can I save a draft reply or draft a reply offline
Just thought I suppose I could do it in word and paste it is that what you do??
Thanks all Keith
Paolo Thanks for your comments much appreciated
Re title line I have something similar to what you say on all my ads on other websites. As it is sometime since I did this website I think I assumed I had got an opening line on my site aswell
Just goes to show how good it is to get someone else to look at your site
Thumnails I tried to put in pictures alongside the text before but was not able to get it to work so put in thumnails instead
Photos I have now found the save for web button on photoshop and it is brilliant
I used to save photos as jpeg but notice this system saves them as gif size 96k 35secs at 28.8kps
does this mean it will take 35secs to load which still does not seem too fast
Interesting what you say about photos being saved in the cache memory So when I've resized my photos and I ask you to go and see how fast they load now
How will you know if its working as they will now be in your cache as well as Izzys
When writing replies such as this is it possible to look back at the forum without losing what I'm typing
Or can I save a draft reply or draft a reply offline
Just thought I suppose I could do it in word and paste it is that what you do??
Thanks all Keith
Keith,
On my screen the reply page has a copy of the thread (in reverse order) farther down the page; try scrolling down to see if you have it. It's very nice -- until I discovered it I had to keep hitting the "back" and "forward" buttons to see what I was replying to!
On the "Save for Web" button in photoshop, does that have a way for you to adjust the compression level (which has the effect of changing the file size)? 96k is still pretty big for a web image... I try to keep my thumbnails below 15k and my large images below 45-50k. The 35 second quote is for someone who is using a 28.8k modem (I don't even know if you can buy those anymore, but it's probably the slowest anyone will use and therefore the best to use as a standard) at typical connection speeds. I'm on broadband and a 96K image would still take enough time to load that I would not be able to instantly see the picture.
On my screen the reply page has a copy of the thread (in reverse order) farther down the page; try scrolling down to see if you have it. It's very nice -- until I discovered it I had to keep hitting the "back" and "forward" buttons to see what I was replying to!
On the "Save for Web" button in photoshop, does that have a way for you to adjust the compression level (which has the effect of changing the file size)? 96k is still pretty big for a web image... I try to keep my thumbnails below 15k and my large images below 45-50k. The 35 second quote is for someone who is using a 28.8k modem (I don't even know if you can buy those anymore, but it's probably the slowest anyone will use and therefore the best to use as a standard) at typical connection speeds. I'm on broadband and a 96K image would still take enough time to load that I would not be able to instantly see the picture.
Brooke