How to Compress HTML Files ?

[Global Trucker]

I use a shopping cart hosted by Pinnacle cart and Im trying to compress my html files so they are not so big. Right now my home page is showing 380k. I changed all the images on it to lower but its still showing a lot. I tried to use httpZip 3.8.4 from Port80 Software: Microsoft IIS Web Server Tools & HTTP Solutions but it would'nt work because I do not have a dedicated server. So if anyone has any suggestions on what I can do to get my pages to load faster and shrink my file sizes I'm all ears.

Thanks

[DaveSawers]

Where did you get the 380k figure from? If it was from Dreamweaver for example, that figure could be misleading. Anyway, 380k is not huge. If speed is your quest, try using tracert to make sure there are no slow computers between yours and your web server. It may just be your server or your servers internet connection is slow.

Make sure that all your CSS and JavaScript are in separate files. That way they are only loaded once for the site, not repeated every page. Reduce reliance on tables by putting layout into the CSS. Use the same graphics on more than one page, so they are only loaded once for the site.

[Global Trucker]

Make sure that all your CSS and JavaScript are in separate files. That way they are only loaded once for the site, not repeated every page. Reduce reliance on tables by putting layout into the CSS. Use the same graphics on more than one page, so they are only loaded once for the site.

how exactly do i go about this ?

[chrisgamuyao]

i am working at software company and it would be glad for me to extend some help regarding HTML and CSS. the two are actually must be complementary. the absence of either HTML or CSS seems that there is something missing in the element. for more details just go on the link below.

<please add your link to your signature>

[Uncle Dog]

Any chance of taking a look at this giant page? Failing that, can you show us a decent chunk of the html?

[weslinda]

Global Trucker - The issue is the way that Pinnacle Builds it's menu. Because it is a dynamic yet table based menu on the left side, you've got tons of links and table cells that are taking up most of your code.

You can do one of two things. First, try and move that menu out of the page, which isn't easy when it comes to Pinnacle. Otherwise, you can rethink your menus and work on a more simplified menu system.

I've used Pinnacle for years and love the cart but it does take some tweaking. The backend is great, but the frontend leaves some to be desired from a coding standpoint.

[Uncle Dog]

Silly me, Global Trucker web-site. Sorry, I thought you were working on something.

[bj]

380k is not huge.

That's the best joke I've heard all day!

Did you know that almost half the people who access the web in the US are still on dialup???? I rarely make a page larger than 75k max, including all images, html, css. and scripting. And I'm sure my visitor retention rates are much, much better than someone who says "380k is not huge."

[Uncle Dog]

Yup, just about 384Kb. Too big for no/slow broadband.

Depending on your knowledge:
You can reduce repetition in some of the html tags. For example every item in your menu is displayed in a table definition

[Uncle Dog]

I've no idea why I got cropped, but I'll continue. Depending on your ability/desire to find out.

Moving the attributes from the item table definitions to the stylesheet will save you around 16Kb.

Moving the table attributes (one for each item) to the stylesheet will save you around 16Kb.

Changing the item links from absolute to relative will save around 12Kb (someone's going to shout at me)

48Kb saving fairly simply. Lots more to be had.

[bj]

Changing the item links from absolute to relative will save around 12Kb (someone's going to shout at me)

I'm not shouting, but I will point out that this is a trivial thing to do on a static site. It is NOT trivial to do on a scripted site. May or may not be easily possible. Most likely not, without hacking core.

[Uncle Dog]

Hi bj,
I know, I know but GT did say "any suggestions on what I can do to get my pages to load faster and shrink my file sizes". You should see what I didn't say!

[jenteh]

Originally Posted by bj

Did you know that almost half the people who access the web in the US are still on dialup????

That doesn't seem right. In Malaysia (a developing country in South-East Asia), broadband penetration is estimated at 30%!

[martindow]

It does seem a very complicated site - the page source is over 4400 lines long.

You can try this
Web Page Analyzer - free website optimization tool website speed test check website performance report from web site optimization
which gives suggestions for reducing the page size.

According to them 110 seconds to load on dial up - only the most determined will hang on that long!

[activeco]

Originally Posted by Global Trucker

I tried to use httpZip 3.8.4 from Port80 Software: Microsoft IIS Web Server Tools & HTTP Solutions but it would'nt work because I do not have a dedicated server.

Sure it didn't work because your server is Apache 1.3 on an Unix machine.
If you don't want to spend a lot of time on redesign and you have access to your server .conf file, you can use mod_gzip solution.
Otherwise you can ask your hosting company to enable the module for you.

[DaveSawers]

Originally Posted by bj

That's the best joke I've heard all day!

As I said, it depends on how you measure page size. If you use Firefox' estimate then you will typically get a page size that's a quarter (or less) of the size Dreamweaver tells you. That could make your well designed page of 75K grow to 300K or more. Which you seem to imply is not huge. What I meant to say in my previous post is that if you use the Dreamweaver measurement, then ...

Anyway, I would certainly advocate working to reduce page size although with a bought in system, your scope is limited.

[DaveSawers]

Originally Posted by bj

Did you know that almost half the people who access the web in the US are still on dialup????

And of course it depends on where you get your statistics from. A quick Google search suggests the figure is below 20%.

Sources:

» Dialup access statistics - Marketing/Ecommerce Research
US Broadband Penetration to Break 90% by Mid-2008 Among Active Internet Users - Broadband Survey: US Broadband Uptake at 57% Overall - February 2008 Bandwidth Report
etc.

[richard-s]

The global trucker page has over 200KB of redundant "space" characters within its HTML.

These space characters are ignored by web browsers so are just adding useless extra size to the HTML file.

Is there an option in your software which will stop these "spaces" being generated?

With "static" web pages, they could be removed easily. Also software is available which removes redundant characters from HTML (sometimes called "compressing" the HTML).

Richard

[richard-s]

Large chunks of Javascript & HTML on the Global Truckers Home page look redundant and unused.

For example, why all the Javascripts concerned with "logins" and "registration"?

Also, see the speed analysis report (courtesy of the Web Developer extension to Firefox):

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/s...altrucker.com/

Richard

[Uncle Dog]

richard-s I think you mean 20Kb

[activeco]

Originally Posted by activeco

... you can use mod_gzip solution.

I have no idea how this originally wrong link (this is for Apache 2) ended here.
The right one is: Compress Web Output Using mod_gzip and Apache [Server Side Essentials]

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by bj

Did you know that almost half the people who access the web in the US are still on dialup????

Depends on whose statistics you read. I've read a 2006 report showing dial-up users being 22%. Whichever number, it's still a lot. Parks Associates - Internet Finding Few Newcomers in 2006


Another report, also from 2006 shows average page file size being 130K, images and flash included.

The Average Web Page - Preliminary Results


Hope this helps.

[bj]

Depends on whose statistics you read. I've read a 2006 report showing dial-up users being 22%. Whichever number, it's still a lot. Parks Associates - Internet Finding Few Newcomers in 2006

Well, you're maybe more right than I am, but you're wrong in a sense. I looked at the OECD 2007 stats. 53% of US homes have broadband, 21% use dialup, and 25% have NO internet connection. I saw the 53% with broadband and made the erroneous jump in my head to 47% being on dialup, which isn't the case.

However, if you look at all US households with an internet connection, roughly 2/3 have broadband and roughly a third are still on dialup. So the truth is somewhere between what I initially said and what you said.

Still really disgusting, if you ask me, especially when compared to Canada (they have the same pop density issues we do, at least to some degree), the UK, Japan, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Poland . . . .
etc.
US Falls to 25th in Broadband Penetration Worldwide - US Broadband Growth Below OECD Average - April 2007 Bandwidth Report

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by jenteh

That doesn't seem right. In Malaysia (a developing country in South-East Asia), broadband penetration is estimated at 30%!

Still, it's true.

In the US, given the deregulation of the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), who own nearly all of the existing physical infrastructure, particularly the all important "last mile," most of the would be Competitive Local Exchange Carriers have been driven out of the market, leaving little to no competitive pressures to force the ILECs to expand beyond the most lucrative markets, namely the urban areas.

Therefore, the bulk of the US by area lacks affordable broadband access; even within the East Coast Megalopolis, which extends from Boston, MA to Raleigh, NC, and which contains approx. one-quarter of the total US population, large areas physically isolated from the major cities by mountains and/or water are without effective broadband service.

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by bj

Well, you're maybe more right than I am, but you're wrong in a sense.

Technically I wasn't really wrong... All I did was quote a couple '06 reports from old bookmarks and linked to them as sources. If they're wrong, it's not me. Numbers changed in '07 I'm sure.

I agree, it's a shame broadband isn't as widely used as it should be. Dial-up just isn't worth saving a few bucks, but people will realize that once they experience broadband. It's like driving an old clunker listening to AM radio. Hopefully someday page size shouldn't even matter.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by jawn_tech

Technically I wasn't really wrong... All I did was quote a couple '06 reports from old bookmarks and linked to them as sources. If they're wrong, it's not me. Numbers changed in '07 I'm sure.

I agree, it's a shame broadband isn't as widely used as it should be. Dial-up just isn't worth saving a few bucks, but people will realize that once they experience broadband. It's like driving an old clunker listening to AM radio. Hopefully someday page size shouldn't even matter.

Not matter what year, it's still a case of apples and oranges, as the methodolgies used in the various studies vary so greatly.

Examples:

1) Some include all households, while others exclude those with no I'net.
2) Some include all with I'net, while others exclude "inactive" users.
3) Some count access anywhere, such as at work, school, library, while others count only those w/ I'net at home.
4) Some count by household, others by individuals.
5) Some count all individuals, others only "adults."
6) Some count anything other than dial-up as "high speed," while others qualify by speed.
7) Some include satellite service, while others exclude it. (Satellite is dial-up for upload.)

Some of these variations owe to the study having been funded by a particular client, with the study having therefore been tailored to that client's needs.

And, for various reasons, some published results are but a specific subset of the whole.

Lastly, not all published results specifically state the methodology employed, thus making valid comparisons exceedingly difficult.

Overall, it appears that at least roughly one-third of American households do not have high speed I'net service at present, with some of those having none at all.

[delnaaz]

HTML files are text files.

You can compress them via Winrar or Winzip... or using Windows' builtin zip function.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by delnaaz

HTML files are text files.

You can compress them via Winrar or Winzip... or using Windows' builtin zip function.

The compression being here discussed is of a type that leaves the HTML in text format, such that it is still readable and can be rendered by the browser.

[johnxuster]

try and move that menu out of the page, which isn't easy when it comes to Pinnacle. Otherwise, you can rethink your menus and work on a more simplified menu system.