On 12 joulu, 05:02, "Rick Faircloth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've seen way too many sites that don't properly optimize images > and end up with a 400 KB image trying to download that could easily > be optimized to 20 KB and maintain image quality... figure up the > difference in performance speed of handling a 400 KB image vs a 20 KB > image and then you've got a *real* issue on your hands.
I'm rather sad that the first example of such blatant deoptimization I could think of was and is ui.jquery.com The frontpage displays the black example image on the right hand side (shown in 400x252 px). Too bad the image is actually a 982x622 PNG (!) image of 441 kB! For the life of me I cannot think of the reasoning for this. The image drops from 441kB to about 23kB when resampled to the correct size and saved as jpg, and the quality actually improves since it's correctly resampled and not just resized with the browser's simple algorithm. What I find disturbing is that it was when ui.jquery.com first launched when people already brought this up, since the frontpage loaded so slowly, yet it has not been fixed - a job that would require maybe less than a minute to do.
