The VG Resource

I feel the website is abit hard to navigate in.
Is there a way to make it lighter and faster to move around?

Or is this simply made so?

You're going to need to be way more specific but in general, massive changes to the layout of the site aren't going to be made on a whim, especially given you're the first person to say anything about it.

I ran some metrics from some diagnostic site and from a server in Washington DC, it gave tSR a rank of 75C.
I don't know if that's too bad.

Usually the go-to method for quick'n'easy website optimisation is server-side image optimisation. PNGs and GIFs and JPGs can be losslessly optimised with tools like PNGcrush PNGgauntlet and with a page like tsr (many many images) that could legitimately save megabytes.

For the most part, that's what we're already doing in addition to compressing the output but a site like tSR, with upwards of hundreds of images per page, typically isn't going to be the best performing. tSoR, for instance, most likely responds quite a bit more quickly and you can test tSR in the same way by enabling text mode as well. I do appreciate you running the diagnostics and sharing the results though!

The more stuff gets added, the more difficult the navigation becomes, but I don't seem to mind it.

Also, I found the site slow on the internet explorer as well, that's why I often use Firefox.

(10-01-2018, 10:22 AM)Petie Wrote: [ -> ]For the most part, that's what we're already doing in addition to compressing the output but a site like tSR, with upwards of hundreds of images per page, typically isn't going to be the best performing. tSoR, for instance, most likely responds quite a bit more quickly and you can test tSR in the same way by enabling text mode as well. I do appreciate you running the diagnostics and sharing the results though!

well, i did some local tests and here's some results for the tSR front page assets:
3 628 869 bytes ( 3.628869 MB ) for 177 items
after recursive ImageOptim pass:
Saved 1,3 MB out of 3,2 MB. 42,1 % per file on average and up to 98,6 %
2 368 460 bytes ( 2.36846 MB ) for 177 items

Additionally, none of the CSS appears to be minified so you could shave off a few kb by doing that too I guess.


for a "quick" fix you could do this once for all images on-site (I'd like to see those numbers) during the next server maintenance, but a bit of backend work is needed if you want to integrate CSS minifiers and image optimisers into the pipeline

We're actually looking at some sheets that have been submitted with majorly inflated file sizes so perhaps we'll work out some way to do these file size reductions in batch at some point. As for minifying CSS/JS, with bandwidth not being a big issue these days, I'm not really sure I see the value in it for a couple KB in savings but regardless, I appreciate your testing all the same. I'm actually kind of impressed by those numbers - I figured they were going to be worse than they are.

Potentially, I can perform a backup of the entire site's sheets and icons, and run a batch to strip them. But that will be a very timely process, as I recall doing it a few years back. Since then I'm pretty sure the site has expanded a LOT.

(10-08-2018, 10:00 AM)Dazz Wrote: [ -> ]Potentially, I can perform a backup of the entire site's sheets and icons, and run a batch to strip them. But that will be a very timely process, as I recall doing it a few years back. Since then I'm pretty sure the site has expanded a LOT.

We did do this during the major site re-launch and yeah, it took quite a while even then. I'm pretty sure we've doubled (or more) since then.

Yeah, retroactively optimising each sheet/thumbnail is a cumbersome job but integrating a server side PNG crusher for all future sheets would be smart I guess.

(10-01-2018, 01:53 AM)hentaiaru Wrote: [ -> ]I feel the website is abit hard to navigate in.
Is there a way to make it lighter and faster to move around?

Or is this simply made so?

A browser that should work fine is Microsoft Edge.
Happy holidays!!