Using a photo-editor to make web pages - how can I reduce the source code?

01-05-2006

Hi there,

Please don't laugh, but I am using my photo editor (Ulead Photoimpact
11) to create my website. I simply do not have the time needed to
learn html and frontpage and I have been using Photoimpact for years
and this one is pretty good - in that I can create rollover objects
and banners, menus etc with great ease. So I am almost content with
it, except for the length of time it takes to load the page on screen.

A colleague who knows HTML had a look at it and said that the source
code is 5 pages long whereas most sites are about 2, and he says this
is why browsers load the page so slowly.

Is there anyway I can reduce this? I have compared my home page source
code with that of a similar site and one of the main differences is
that mine is filled with entries like this:

</SCRIPT></HEAD><BODY TOPMARGIN=0 LEFTMARGIN=0 MARGINWIDTH=0
MARGINHEIGHT=0><TABLE BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0><TR><TD
WIDTH=469 HEIGHT=4 COLSPAN=21></TD><TD COLSPAN=7 ROWSPAN=2><IMG
SRC=images/_1.jpg WIDTH=159 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=59></TD><TD WIDTH=46
HEIGHT=59 COLSPAN=6 ROWSPAN=2></TD></TR><TR><TD WIDTH=19 HEIGHT=60
COLSPAN=3 ROWSPAN=2></TD><TD COLSPAN=6 ROWSPAN=2><IMG SRC=images/_4.jpg
WIDTH=215 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=60></TD><TD WIDTH=235 HEIGHT=55
COLSPAN=12></TD></TR><TR><TD WIDTH=440 HEIGHT=5
COLSPAN=25></TD></TR><TR><TD WIDTH=6 HEIGHT=10></TD><TD COLSPAN=32><IMG
SRC=images/_8.jpg WIDTH=664 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=10></TD><TD WIDTH=4
HEIGHT=10></TD></TR><TR><TD WIDTH=674 HEIGHT=15
COLSPAN=34></TD></TR><TR><TD COLSPAN=30><IMG SRC=images/_11.jpg
WIDTH=642 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=7></TD><TD WIDTH=32 HEIGHT=42 COLSPAN=4
ROWSPAN=3></TD></TR><TR><TD COLSPAN=5><IMG SRC=images/_13.jpg WIDTH=100
BORDER=0 HEIGHT=13></TD><TD BACKGROUND=images/_14.jpg>

Is this what is causing the slow loading of my page? I can provide the
link to my site but I don't want to do it publically here, so if
anyone can help by knowing the site and looking at it - just email me
and i can email you back the link.

Cheers in advance,

Lost.Joey (at gmail...)

01-05-2006

You touchy, you breaky.

It looks like the program is using tables extensively to format your
page, which is extremely inefficient and fragile, and definitely "write
only."

This is why WYSIWYG editors are evil incarnate, yea, the devil's hand
on earth. Learn HTML, learn CSS, and do-it-yourself. It's really less
painful than you think.

Or keep with your editor, and live with the long upload times.

Walter Gildersleeve
Freiburg, Germany

__________________________________________________ ____
http://linkfrog.net
URL Shortening
Free and easy, small and green.

01-05-2006

Yes, I realise that, but what I mean is - is there any way I can
*salvage* what I have already created - rather than create my web page
from scratch all over again?
Could I open it in a HTML editor and make a few small changes to
improve things? Or would it be like a house of cards where if I remove
one thing the whole structure comes crashing down?

Joey

01-05-2006

> Could I open it in a HTML editor and make a few small changes to
> improve things? Or would it be like a house of cards where if I remove
> one thing the whole structure comes crashing down?

I suspect the latter. Your code is laboriously placing every element
somewhere precise, and (of course) the browsers comply to the user's
detriment (won't gracefully resize, demands certain window widths, etc).
Post a link and you may get more help. To "fix" the code you'll have
to take out at least two thirds of it... and figuring out which two
thirds is harder than simply re-creating it.

HTML is not a presentation tool. It is a description tool. The web
browser is the presentation tool. You tell the browser =what= something
represents, and the browser decides how to best represent it.

Despite the opinions of some that decry WYSIWIG HTML editors, they do
have their place for simple sites (but avoid FrontPage like the plague,
as it locks you into itself). I run a simple site using Netscape
Composer and it works fine for my purposes right now. It's easy to
create content, and you can see and mess with the code. Doing so you
can teach yourself the rudiments of HTML too (though it does use tables
for layout, a tolerable evil IMHO when compared with the huge amounts of
CSS code I have seen on some sites (every word seems to have its own set
of tags!).

Post a link to your site so we can see what you are trying to do.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

01-06-2006

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Joey
<> spouted in alt.html:

> A colleague who knows HTML had a look at it and said that the source
> code is 5 pages long whereas most sites are about 2, and he says this
> is why browsers load the page so slowly.
<snip>
> Is this what is causing the slow loading of my page?

To an extent, yes. That code certainly is nasty. But the large number of
images would be slowing it down a lot more. Try optimising the images
further, or reducing the number of images on each page. If it's a page
of thumbnails, make sure they *are* thumbnails, not just the full image
shrunk by the HTML.

There really is no substitute for doing it yourself.

--
Mark Parnell
================================================== ===
Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

01-06-2006

In article
< .com>,
"Joey" <> wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> Please don't laugh, but I am using my photo editor (Ulead Photoimpact
> 11) to create my website. I simply do not have the time needed to
> learn html and frontpage and I have been using Photoimpact for years
> and this one is pretty good - in that I can create rollover objects
> and banners, menus etc with great ease. So I am almost content with
> it, except for the length of time it takes to load the page on screen.
>
> A colleague who knows HTML had a look at it and said that the source
> code is 5 pages long whereas most sites are about 2, and he says this
> is why browsers load the page so slowly.
>
> Is there anyway I can reduce this? I have compared my home page source
> code with that of a similar site and one of the main differences is
> that mine is filled with entries like this:
>
> </SCRIPT></HEAD><BODY TOPMARGIN=0 LEFTMARGIN=0 MARGINWIDTH=0
> MARGINHEIGHT=0><TABLE BORDER=0 C

I suspect it is slow because there are too many pictures rather
than too much html (which it would have too much of, true). Your
method is very unwise. At the very least use software that sort
of specialises in producing html, dreamweaver and so on, google
up. Photo editing software has some of these functions to do
image maps, rollovers and so on but I suspect you are essentially
doing everything in pictures and it is fighting to display
them... Don't do it.

--
dorayme

01-06-2006

Joey wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> Please don't laugh, but I am using my photo editor (Ulead Photoimpact
> 11) to create my website. I simply do not have the time needed to
> learn html and frontpage and I have been using Photoimpact for years
> and this one is pretty good - in that I can create rollover objects
> and banners, menus etc with great ease. So I am almost content with
> it, except for the length of time it takes to load the page on screen.
>
> A colleague who knows HTML had a look at it and said that the source
> code is 5 pages long whereas most sites are about 2, and he says this
> is why browsers load the page so slowly.
>
> Is there anyway I can reduce this? I have compared my home page source
> code with that of a similar site and one of the main differences is
> that mine is filled with entries like this:
>
> </SCRIPT></HEAD><BODY TOPMARGIN=0 LEFTMARGIN=0 MARGINWIDTH=0
> MARGINHEIGHT=0><TABLE BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0><TR><TD
> WIDTH=469 HEIGHT=4 COLSPAN=21></TD><TD COLSPAN=7 ROWSPAN=2><IMG
> SRC=images/_1.jpg WIDTH=159 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=59></TD><TD WIDTH=46
> HEIGHT=59 COLSPAN=6 ROWSPAN=2></TD></TR><TR><TD WIDTH=19 HEIGHT=60
> COLSPAN=3 ROWSPAN=2></TD><TD COLSPAN=6 ROWSPAN=2><IMG SRC=images/_4.jpg
> WIDTH=215 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=60></TD><TD WIDTH=235 HEIGHT=55
> COLSPAN=12></TD></TR><TR><TD WIDTH=440 HEIGHT=5
> COLSPAN=25></TD></TR><TR><TD WIDTH=6 HEIGHT=10></TD><TD COLSPAN=32><IMG
> SRC=images/_8.jpg WIDTH=664 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=10></TD><TD WIDTH=4
> HEIGHT=10></TD></TR><TR><TD WIDTH=674 HEIGHT=15
> COLSPAN=34></TD></TR><TR><TD COLSPAN=30><IMG SRC=images/_11.jpg
> WIDTH=642 BORDER=0 HEIGHT=7></TD><TD WIDTH=32 HEIGHT=42 COLSPAN=4
> ROWSPAN=3></TD></TR><TR><TD COLSPAN=5><IMG SRC=images/_13.jpg WIDTH=100
> BORDER=0 HEIGHT=13></TD><TD BACKGROUND=images/_14.jpg>

>
> Is this what is causing the slow loading of my page?

Maybe.

I can provide the
> link to my site but I don't want to do it publically here, so if
> anyone can help by knowing the site and looking at it - just email me
> and i can email you back the link.
>
> Cheers in advance,
>
> Lost.Joey (at gmail...)
You should not really use a graphics editor for the creation of web
pages. That's not what they are ment for. You would be better off
taking a look at NVU from, http://www.nvu.com
A good easy to use HTML editor, and it's WYSIWYG.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

01-06-2006

Joey wrote:

> Is this what is causing the slow loading of my page?

You know, this is alt.HTML so any problem caused by an HTML generator
tool like yours causes a pharyngeal reflex which manifests itself in
"don't use such a tool" being spouted at you.

Still, at this point it is all speculation. Show us the page URL and
you'll get an explanation what the real performance problem is in no time.

> I can provide the
> link to my site but I don't want to do it publically here, so if
> anyone can help by knowing the site and looking at it - just email me
> and i can email you back the link.

No, I don't want to deal with private mail and be your personal tutor.
Show us the page. If it's some secret private stuff then sanitize the
pictures and show us a sanitized example.

--
Gregor's Motorradreisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/

01-07-2006

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:49:06 +0000, Jose wrote:

> though it does use tables
> for layout, a tolerable evil IMHO when compared with the huge amounts of
> CSS code I have seen on some sites (every word seems to have its own set
> of tags!).

No way, jose

--
JDS |
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/

01-07-2006

With neither quill nor qualm, JDS quothed:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:49:06 +0000, Jose wrote:
>
> > though it does use tables
> > for layout, a tolerable evil IMHO when compared with the huge amounts of
> > CSS code I have seen on some sites (every word seems to have its own set
> > of tags!).
>
> No way, jose

Are you referring to the poster "Jose" or the general "Jose" of no-way
fame?

Anyway, I agree with, uh, Jose. Css is far from perfected and there is
a place for tables, which still can do some things css can't, in what
might be called a layout venue. Undoubtedly tables are over-used, but
that doesn't invalidate their occasional application.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
how to make to transmit the parameters of a cgi between these various pages I would like to use param but I do not see how to make	john.swilting	Perl Misc	1	03-27-2007 09:46 AM
Using Web.config's <system.web><pages><controls><add /></controls></pages></system.web> To Register UserControls	Nathan Sokalski	ASP .Net	5	01-10-2007 10:50 AM
Using Web.config's <system.web><pages><controls><add /></controls></pages></system.web> To Register UserControls	Nathan Sokalski	ASP .Net Web Controls	4	12-21-2006 02:50 AM
Using Web.config's <system.web><pages><controls><add /></controls></pages></system.web> To Register UserControls	Nathan Sokalski	ASP .Net Building Controls	4	12-21-2006 02:50 AM
better to compress the jpeg or reduce resolution or reduce pixel size?	Mr.Will	Digital Photography	8	10-08-2004 03:16 PM