We have developed this site: http://www.aloha-connect.com/
Our issue is that within this page, we have many frames.. in some cases, frame within a frame.
Our issue is, that on connections with low bandwidth. It can take a long time to load. We have tried using the php gzip code: to load, but we are noticing that the frame contents are not loading as quick. We then tried putting the code within the frame pages as well and didn't make any difference.
Same happens on this page as well http://aloha-connect.com/rates/
Any support/suggestions appreciated.
take a look at and attempt to fix any high and medium priority items from Google pagespeed
get rid of the unnecessary frames (all of them). You tagged this as PHP, so use PHP include() to include content from other files. (As noted by #cryptic, you will have to edit the html from your included files so it will display properly)
use CSS Sprites when you have lots of icons and small images. put your icons in one image, and then use CSS to only show the correct icon: http://css-tricks.com/css-sprites/
compress all your CSS into one css file and all your JS into one minified JS file. How to minify JS or CSS on the fly
use a CDN for jQuery.
Are all the frames served from the same domain?
Keep in mind that browsers restrict the number of requests to the same domain. I think this is currently set to 2. This includes HTML pages, images, scripts, CCS files.
A common workaround is to host some resources on other domains, like cdn1.mydomain.com and cdn2.mydomain.com. This will allow the browser to fetch more resources at once, potentially all of them at once.
If you open the Net tab in Firebug or the Network tab in Chrome you can see which requests are pending.
Related
My website is incredibly slow, or at least the fonts are, and I am getting massive amounts of FOIT. I have solved this by putting a spinner on the frontpage, which does not display the website until the fonts are loaded. However, when I then visit other pages, I still get FOITs - how come? I thought the font was loaded now, and would not have to be loaded again?
If this is not the case, can i somehow cache it and save it, once its loaded?
I am using normal HTML, PHP, CSS.
See this post which describes how to use a font face loader and monitor to avoid "Flashes Of Invisible Text" (FOIT.)
To answer specifically regarding caching of fonts once loaded: this should happen, so there may be one of the following issues occurring:
Your server is not sending the appropriate cache control headers for the fonts resulting in them being re-requested on subsequent pages.
Subsequent pages are referencing different font files or font files at different URLs than your main page.
Today I read some articles about compressing multiple JS and CSS files to one in order to lower the bandwith and HTTP requests. Is there analogical situation with the php files? Is it better to create master pages that include few PHP files(header.php,footer.php and etc)in order to have a well formatted and readable code than having just a large index.php?
PHP is run on the server, and as such, only the resulting HTML is sent over to the client. Keep your files separated for clarity, it doesn't make a difference in the HTTP requests or bandwidth.
Like Xeon06 mentioned, PHP is a server-side script, and doesn't affect a bandwidth, which is size the of the content transferred through HTTP. Size of the bandwidth based on HTML, CSS, JS, Graphics, Flash and anything client-side files. Because browsers cache these kind of files, it reduces the bandwidth, because browser will get the file content from cache and not download from server again.
If I were in your shoes, I would still use includes for headers, footers or whatever is common in most pages. It just makes it easier to maintain a content and code. For example, if you have a feedback form on all pages and you want to edit a field name, link or something else, it's easier to edit one file instead of "Find and Replace" through all files you have, which doesn't work well anyways.
If JavaScript and CSS files were included inside of pages it would cut down the number of http requests and therefore make the page load faster. I feel like I am missing something because it seems like any organization interested in lightning-quick pages would do this. However, I don't recall any sites having tons of CSS and JavaScript into their pages as I look at the source code.
Questions:
What errors are in my statements above?
What are the drawbacks of this approach (shown in the title via psuedocde)?
If the data is in an external file it can be cached and reused on other pages (or the same page, revisited) without having to fetch it over the network again.
You get a minor performance penalty on the first page in exchange for a major performance enhancement on subsequent pages.
Modularity is a major concern:
I can pick and choose which javascript and css files I want per page: otherwise I'd have a ton of css and javascript files that have all the different configurations (which is just messy).
I can also cache a file and hand it to someone else faster
Where you will find an example of this happening is when sites chuck their images together into one png file and then use css to slice up the bits they want for buttons etc.
Another aspect not only for inline css and jscript. When I write code I hate to repeat. It leads to errors is difficult to maintain (update/edit) and a waste of time and space. Printing CSS or jscript once in a file that gets downloaded once is less error prone, easy to maintain and less waste of time and space.
I'm creating a website from scratch and I was really into this in the late 90's but the web has changed alot since then! And I'm more of a designer so when I started putting this site together, I basically did a system of php includes to make the site more "dynamic"
When you first visit the site, you'll be presented to a logon screen, if you're not already logged on (cookies). If you're not logged on, a page called access.php is introdused.
I thought I'd preload the most heavy images at this point. So that when the user is done logging on, the images are already cached. And this is working as I want. But I still notice that the biggest image still isn't rendered immediatly anyway. So it's seems kinda pointless.
All of this has made me rethink how the site is structured and how scripts and css files are loaded. Using FireBug and YSlow with Firefox I see a few pointers like expires headers and reducing the size of each script. But is this really the culprit?
For example, would this be really really stupid in the main index.php? The entire site is basically structured like this
<?php
require("dbconnect.php");
?>
<?php
include ("head.php");
?>
And below this is basically just the body and the content of the site.
Head.php however consists of the doctype, head portions, linking of two css style sheets, jQuery library, jQuery validation engine, Cufon and Cufon font file, and then the small Cufon.Replace snippet.
The rest of the body comes with the index.php file, but at the bottom of this again is an include of a file called "footer.php" which basically consists of loading of a couple of jsLoader scripts and a slidepanel and then a js function.
All of this makes the end page source look like a typical complete webpage, but I'm wondering if any of you can see immediatly that "this is really really stupid" and "don't do that, do this instead" etc. :) Are includes a bad way to go?
This site is also pretty image intensive and I can probably do a little more optimization.
But I don't think that's its the primary culprit. YSlow gives me a report of what takes up the most space:
doc(1) - 5.8K
js(5) - 198.7K
css(2) - 5.6K
cssimage(8) - 634.7K
image(6) - 110.8K
I know it looks like it's cssimage(8) that weighs the most, but I've already preloaded these images from before and it doesn't really affect the rendering.
To speed a little, you could assemble all your images on the same image sprite, so that you have only 1 request to download all the images. But that requires you to fine tune your css to let display just the small subset of your image.
To have a better explanation, check out : http://css-tricks.com/css-sprites/
Another answer that could seem a little stupid but I like to think of this when I make a website : Just Keep It Simple. I mean do all your JS add real value, do all this images are fine, could you display less, make a lighter design ? I'm not criticizing your work at all, just suggest you...
I used the following approach on an extranet project:
Using jQuery and a array of file names, I ajax in all the images, .js and .css files so that they are preloaded in the cache. As I iterate through the array, I update a progress bar on the screen that indicates that the site is loading - much like a flash loader.
It worked well.
What I will do is show by default the loading page with pure CSS and HTML then wait for the jQuery to load and preload the images with ImageLoader. Once you are done redirect to the normal website since the images will be already in the cache they won't be loaded again.
Another optimization you can do is minify all JS files and combine all except the jquery.js. Put the jquery.js first into your HTML so it loads first. Also put your SCRIPT tags at the bottom of the HTML.
It sounds like you have pretty much nailed preloading, if you have loaded it once, and the expiry header is set correctly, you have preloaded it, no matter what kind of content it is.
File combination can be key to a quick website, each extra file will add load time, in the worst cases of network and server lag you might add up to a second extra for each separate file. More commonly it will be around 100 - 200 milliseconds per file.
If not already minified, minify the scripts, and put them in the same file, just remember to keep the order. I have no idea why Ivo Sabev wouldn't include jQuery.
Same thing with the CSS files.
How much have you done about testing image compression? There can really be a gain from trying out different compression settings and comparing size vs. quality. For PNG images IrfanView with PNGOUT can often make files 25% smaller than other programs, on top of that, a very big gain in size reduction can be achieved by reducing the image to 8 bit colour, with a lot of graphic elements you simply can't tell the difference. Right here on Stack Overflow there is a great example of well compressed and stacked images in the editor control buttons: http://sstatic.net/so/Img/wmd-buttons.png
I am currently developing a web site with PHP + MySQL and jQuery. So far I have been doing it in my local machine. I notice that when I see the page the images on it take some time to load (few time but its visible). All images are small (PNG's with less than 3 KB). Now, when I load the page, there are some database connections happening in order to get some data that I will display.
I am not sure if this loading time issue has something to do with the amount of images, or with the time that the PHP script + the DB connections take to execute. (I have very little data in my database so I wouldn't assume this case.)
My question is: Is it a good approach to preload all the images in the beginning of each page? I tried it with jQuery and it works fine. I'm just not sure which disadvantages I can get with it. For example, to do so, I need to include the jQuery library in the beginning of the page? I thought it was a bad practice.
If these PNGs are stored in the database as BLOBs — not clear from your question — don't do that. Serving images from a DB through PHP is not as efficient as letting the web server serve them straight from the filesystem. If the images are tied to particular records, just name the PNG after the row ID, so you can find it in a directory dedicated to storing those images. The PHP code then just generates the URL that points to the PNG file on disk, so the web server can send them statically.
I don't think preloading the images within the same page is going to buy you anything. If anything, it might slow the apparent overall page load time because the browser can only retrieve a fixed number of resources concurrently, typically 2-4. Loading images at the top of the <body> means there are other things at the top of the page "above the fold" that have to wait for some HTTP connection slots to free up. Better to let the images load in their natural order.
Preloading makes sense in two situations:
The image isn't shown by default, but is expected to be needed as the user interacts with the page. Good examples of this are the hover and click state images for rollovers.
The image isn't used on this page, but will be needed on the next. Good examples of this are any site where there is a clear progression from one page to the next, like in a shopping cart.
Either way, do the preload at the very bottom of the <body>, so everything else loads first.
Having addressed those two issues, run YSlow on your site. It started out as a plugin for Firebug, which in turn is a plugin for Firefox, but it's since been ported to all major browsers except IE.
The beauty of YSlow is that it detects common slowdowns automatically, just by loading the page while the extension is active. It then gives you a clear grade for the page, so you can judge when you're "done" optimizing. If you're below an A, you're not done yet. :) It's not uncommon to see sites rating a D or worse, because the default configuration for web servers is conservative to avoid causing problems. Fixing YSlow warnings is generally pretty easy, but you have to be careful to avoid creating caching and other problems, which is why the default server config doesn't do these things.
Another answer recommended the Google PageSpeed offering. It's available as a plugin for Chrome and Firefox, as a server-side Apache module, and as a Google-hosted service. I have no idea how it compares to YSlow, but it looks interesting.
Also consider using the browser's debugger to get a waterfall graph of resource load times:
In Firebug you get this in the Net tab.
In Safari, you get to it via the Develop menu, which is normally disabled in Preferences. Turn it on if needed, then say Develop > Start Timeline Recording. That puts you into the Network Requests instrument. You can also get to it through Develop > Show Web Inspector.
In Chrome, say View > Developer > Developer Tools, then go to the Network tab.
IE has a very weak form of this, via Tools > Developer Tools > Profiler. It just gives a table of numbers, rather than a waterfall graph, so the information is there, but you can't just visually scan for long bars to find the slowest resources.
You should use page speed plugin from google to check what data takes most of the time to load. It will show separate load times for images as well.
If you're using lots of small pngs I suggest you combining them into one image and manipulating the display via css background property since they are part of styling and not information. In that case - instead of few images only one will be loaded and reused through all elements. In this case even preloading of one image is really easy.
Have you considered using CSS Sprites to combine all of your images into a single download? There are a number of tools online to help you do this, and it will significantly reduce the number of HTTP requests required by your page.
Make sure you have set the correct Expires header on your images to allow them to be cached.
Finally, take a look at YSlow which can provide you with futher optimisation tips.