This website was not build by me, by another person for the good friend of mine. And the site was made so badly and cost a lot of money, and my friend is frustrated because it's a brand new site! :mad:
He asked my advice now (he knows it's too late) how the site speed could be improved. The guy who build the site asks more money to improve the site and says it's just the size of photos that prevent site from site loading but I'm afraid that it's a lie to the naive client (my friend).
I really want to help my friend in this frustrating situation. Unfortunately he doesnt have any more budget to invest in his badly made brand-new site. I tried to analyse the website with gtmetrix but it's fetching only the entry page and not the whole site behind the entry page.
Your feedback is precious for me:
I can assure you it's not (just) the photos that are slowing the site down. Attached you'll find a waterfall load of the website (chrono-motors.com/Chrono_motors/PAGE_FirstHP/~C0AABOqpLZveHVrTkJCT3lnAQA?M5) created using http://www.webpagetest.org/
As you can see, loading the page itself takes about 7.2 seconds, which is WAY too long. Your friend should probably point the developer to webpagetest.org and show that it isn't (just) the images that makes the site load slow.
From the looks of it, your friend got screwed. It's hard to tell how you can improve performance unless someone reviews the code. As a programmer, I can tell you that some project will save money by starting from scratch. Since UI design is in place, it should cost less to re-do the project. No JS should take 7 seconds to load! In any case, he sounds like horrible programmer... he'd charge to fix his own crappy code.
Having multiple languages could justify some expense. But I was surprised to see
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<link rel="shortcut icon" type="images/x-icon" href="http://www.chrono-motors.com/img/icones/logo1.ico" />
<link rel="shortcut icon" type="images/png" href="http://www.chrono-motors.com/img/icones/logo1.ico" />
<FRAMESET rows="100%,*" frameborder=no border=0>
<FRAME SRC="" scrolling="No" noresize>
I agree with ScallioXTX that there's more to the problem than just the images.
However, I looked at the information for the home page image, and saw 1,038px × 873px (scaled to 692px × 623px). So the browser is downloading a larger file than necessary, and having to use resources to resize it. I downloaded that image, resized it to 692px × 623px and the file size dropped from 532.8 kB to 268.0 kB - and that was without doing anything else to optimise it. Same problem elsewhere: logo 172px × 172px (scaled to 88px × 88px); image on the "About" page 414px × 526px (scaled to 227px × 275px). Also, a background image of 586.94 kB is huge - especially for something which is a simple repeating pattern.
This may not be the main issue with the site, but it is surely proof that whoever built it wasn't doing his job, and I would have thought your friend should have some comeback there.
Using the Web Developer Toolbar to check the document size, I found large scripts and style sheets. Using compression on these would help reduce the size and loading time.
Thank you so much, everybody! It's a very very valuable feedback for me and for my friend, I'll communicate him all the faults, so he can speak with confidence with the developer.
This topic is now archived. It is frozen and cannot be changed in any way.