Monkeyboy — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:44:15 +0000

I'll see what I can do youuuuuu understand

JeevesBond — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:56:10 +0000

Andy wrote: wtf?

Stuart Ford is someone Jules (monkeyboy) works with (and someone I used to work with). You ought to post a picture of him Jules.

He has some great catch-phrases, such as: 'You, errrrr, understand.' and 'course, errrr...' you should also get some recordings of that Jules, then everyone would errrr, understand.

andy206uk — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:23:56 +0000

JeevesBond;215539 wrote:

You been speaking to Stuart Ford this morning? 'Course, with my skills youuuuuu understand.'

Should've asked him how to do image optimisation!

The great thing about this post is that if Stuart ever does a search for himself on the Internet, there's a good chance he'll find this, especially if he includes the words: 'flat top'.

Hello Stuart Ford! :wave:

wtf?

JeevesBond — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:10:24 +0000

Monkeyboy wrote: (something I never do myself youuuu understand).

You been speaking to Stuart Ford this morning? 'Course, with my skills youuuuuu understand.'

Should've asked him how to do image optimisation!

The great thing about this post is that if Stuart ever does a search for himself on the Internet, there's a good chance he'll find this, especially if he includes the words: 'flat top'.

Hello Stuart Ford! :wave:

Monkeyboy — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:22:22 +0000

Ah ok, I was kinda thinkin' there was something a bit more involved about it all but that's cool, at least I seem to be doing things right.

That specifying the height and width of the image is something i'll do in future though... good call guys. Up until now I just assumed you only used it if you needed to resize images (something I never do myself youuuu understand).

JeevesBond — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:07:43 +0000

Agreed with Renegade, it's the balance between getting the image file size as small as possible whilst retaining enough of the images quality.

There are many ways of doing this, and not all image formats reduce quality (what we call 'lossy'). PNG and GIF are both 'lossless' formats, that is they don't reduce the image quality in order to reduce file size, although they aren't very well suited to photographs. JPEG reduces image quality to decrease file size.

With regard to HTML, there's no way to optimise an image with it, although there are some good practices you can use when embedding images into pages:

Specify the height and width of the image (as Megan pointed out; this doesn't optimise the image itself but it does mean your page layout will not change as images are loaded).
Don't use HTML to change the dimensions of an image, e.g. width="200" height="200" for an image that has a width and height of 500px. This looks ugly, forces the user to download an image they'll probably never see in its entirety, and looks amateurish. Don't do it!

That's what I can think of immediately. Can anyone think of anymore best practices?

Renegade — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:03:28 +0000

To me, "image optimisation" simply means saving the best possible quality for the lowest possible file size in an image.

Megan — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:57:01 +0000

Having a height and width on the HTML tag (that matches the height and width on the image itslef) can help the browser render it faster.