If you can standardize your image dimensions..you can resize and optimize
them in a few minutes with IrFanview (freebie).
IOW...if you say ok...all my small images will be 400x300, all my medium
images will be...whatever, and all my big images will be...blah x blah, with
three passes of batch processing in IrFanview you'd be done in under 10
minutes.
--
Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
| Okay - with 500 plus images that resizing thing is probably a long term
| project ... in the meantime, what happens if I just delete the gif files
once
| I have uploaded? I have tried it with one & it still seems to wrk, but
maybe
| it wouldn't be visible through firefox. On the other hand, if a browser
is
| choosing which of the two images to view, does it really matter that there
| are two versions - it might add to my upload time, but not to my viewers
| download time ...?
|
| "DavidF" wrote:
|
| > The more pictures you have on a page the larger it will be. While Rob
might
| > be correct about 40kb being a good goal for FP websites, that is
probably
| > unrealistic for Publisher pages. FP produces more efficient code, than
| > Publisher. I think that if you can stay under 100kb for a Publisher page
| > with pictures, you are doing great. That page will load quickly enough
to
| > keep the interest of the viewer. Publisher also tends to load text
rather
| > quickly and before pictures, so I would feel good about 80kb, especially
if
| > you originally had a 200kb image on that page. Just keep in mind the
| > principle that the smaller the file size, the faster the page will load.
If
| > you have a lot of images, the page will take longer to load. Just avoid
lots
| > of large pictures. This is what optimization is all about.
| >
| > Part of the reason for larger file sizes is that as you discovered,
| > Publisher sometimes makes multiple copies of the inserted images with
the
| > goal of providing the "best" image version for the browser used....with
| > mixed success. Unfortunately that can mean the low resolution gif copy
is
| > loaded in FireFox. I have found that if you not only optimize the
resolution
| > of the image but also resize the image before inserting it into the
| > Publisher page, such that the image is displayed at 100% scale,
Publisher
| > usually will not make the lower resolution copy for FF...it will use the
| > better quality image for all browsers.
| >
| > As an example, say you insert a full size, high resolution image taken
| > directly from your digital camera into a Publisher page. You then reduce
the
| > image box to fit your page layout design. If you right click the image >
| > format picture > size tab, you will see the height and width of your
image
| > box under "Size and rotate". If you look under "Scale" you will see what
%
| > the image is at. Then go back to your original image and reduce the
| > resolution to 96dpi, and resize the dimensions of the image to agree
with
| > the dimensions of your picture box. Then insert this new optimized and
| > resized image and set the scale at 100%. Publisher will then use the one
| > image for both FF and IE, you won't get the lower resolution copy and
your
| > image will be at the best quality and smallest size...in other words, it
| > will be optimized for your Publisher built webpage.
| >
| > If the extra step of resizing the dimensions of the image in the image
| > editor to fit the text box is more than you want to do, then at least
reduce
| > the resolution of the image. That alone is most important for improving
| > loading speed. For the best quality, also resize the image such that you
can
| > display it at 100% scale.
| >
| > DavidF
| >
| > | > > okay - I have done all that - even the "tiresome" image downsizing -
but
| > > the
| > > web pages still come out at 80kb. It seems that publisher is saving
both
| > > a
| > > gif and a jpg version of my images in the "index file" which is
doubling
| > > the
| > > size. why? do I need both? can I just delete one of them? thanks.
| > >
| > > "DavidF" wrote:
| > >
| > >> Like Rob I also feel that 200kb is still too large for a web image,
| > >> unless
| > >> perhaps if it is a full page image, but even then you should be able
to
| > >> reduce it to a fraction of that. It may be too "tiresome" for you to
do
| > >> it
| > >> the right way in an image editing program, but then it will also be
too
| > >> "tiresome" for people viewing your site to wait for such a huge
picture
| > >> to
| > >> load, and they will move on to another site. It would take around a
full
| > >> minute for a 200 kb image to load for a dial-up connection.
| > >>
| > >> Mike Koewler posted this link:
| > >>
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/index.html
| > >> Go there to get an idea of how long it takes for your site to load
and
| > >> perhaps rethink how "tiresome" it will be to optimize your images so
that
| > >> people will actually stay around long enough to view the site.
| > >>
| > >> DavidF
| > >>
| > >> | > >> > Thanks David - I have made sure the two buttons are unchecked ...
the
| > >> > strange thing is that I have used "change picture " on a page which
is
| > >> > compressing & inserted the non-compressing image - no problem, it
| > >> > compresses
| > >> > fine; similarly, substituting the compressing image on the
| > >> > non-compressing
| > >> > page &it doesn't compress, so it would appear the problem is with
the
| > >> > pages
| > >> > rather than the images - each page is a seperate document for
various
| > >> > ease-of-handling reasons. The original image size for both pages
is
| > >> > approx
| > >> > 4MB - compresses to 200kb when it works ... I know I can use other
| > >> > software
| > >> > to compress, but that would be very tiresome ... and the point is
it
| > >> > should
| > >> > work! don't like to leave an unsolvable mystery!!!!
| > >> >
| > >> > "DavidF" wrote:
| > >> >
| > >> >> When you use the Compress feature, you can choose to compress the
| > >> >> images
| > >> >> on
| > >> >> one page or the whole document. Try the whole document....or now,
the
| > >> >> pages
| > >> >> where the images appear to not be compressed.
| > >> >>
| > >> >> Some images may already be as compressed as they can be by this
| > >> >> method.
| > >> >>
| > >> >> In some cases your design may result in images being combined with
| > >> >> other
| > >> >> design elements to produce other combined images. Also, if you use
| > >> >> non-web
| > >> >> fonts, those text boxes can be converted to images, thus
increasing
| > >> >> your
| > >> >> overall file size. Some of these design mistakes can be found by
| > >> >> running
| > >> >> the
| > >> >> design checker tool.
| > >> >>
| > >> >> Be sure to go to Tools > Options > Web tab and uncheck "Rely on
| > >> >> VML..."
| > >> >> and
| > >> >> "Allow PNG...".
| > >> >>
| > >> >> For optimal results resize and optimize your images in a third
party
| > >> >> image
| > >> >> editing program before you insert them into the Pub document, and
size
| > >> >> them
| > >> >> at 100%. If you don't have an image editing program a popular
freebie
| > >> >> is
| > >> >>
www.irfanview.com
| > >> >>
| > >> >> DavidF
| > >> >>
message
| > >> >> | > >> >> >I am using publisher 2003 to construct my website - lots of
pretty
| > >> >> >pictures
| > >> >> > so I am using the compress pcitures button to keep the file size
| > >> >> > smaller -
| > >> >> > it
| > >> >> > seems to work for some pages & not for others even if they are
very
| > >> >> > similar -
| > >> >> > does anyone else have this problem ???? & a solution????
| > >> >>
| > >> >>
| > >> >>
| > >>
| > >>
| > >>
| >
| >
| >
