Subscribe
Sign in
imgix Page Weight Tool — See how visual media affects your page speed
Slow-loading visual media drives users away from your website—find out how to fix and optimize load times with this free imgix report.
20
Replies
Super handy tool by the good folks at imgix!
Here's a sample report with Baremetrics: http://pageweight.imgix.com/jobs...
We clearly have some work to do. 😬
Nice work building a handy tool to showcase the power of Imgix! Love how it clearly describes the value of your service in a context that is totally helpful to the developer.
It seems to want me to replace an animated gif with a png. Definitely much smaller, but also less... animated: https://pageweight.imgix.com/job...
@zackbloom Ah, yep. We overlooked that in development. We'll weigh those as MP4s and present that as a potential improvement.
Hello. Nice tool!
Feedback: It doesn't seem to handle CSS sprite images correct: "we were able to reduce it by NaN%.".
The image is 140KB in total and it suggests to reduce it to 786B by apparently dropping most most of the images.
Job report is at https://pageweight.imgix.com/job... in case you want to dig deeper.
@albertoperdomo Hi Alberto. Ah, that is a good find. We'll work on a fix for that issue. Thanks for giving it a spin!
@ypcrumble No lying here. We process the page as fast as possible.
We do about 2 dozen passes on each image to see how we can best optimize it. Doing that for an entire site can take a few seconds.
@kellysutton didn't realize you were doing more than just "weighing" the size of the images. I said it was interesting because I'm not sure it would be lying. You're providing a free service. It doesn't seem necessarily wrong for people to wait for slower service if they don't want to provide you their email. On the flip side they pay for better service by giving you their email address and not having to wait!
Just ran a test and it's been sitting at 27/28 for 5 minutes. I'm going to let it sit and see what happens.
Update: It finished after 7 minutes or so.
@scottwyden Hi Scott. Sorry for the slowdown. Working on scaling up the system currently. Thanks for your patience!
The image compression it recommended degrades the image quality too much. It's unacceptable for creatives. But for others it may not matter. The space saving you would get from the heavy compression is notable, though. Personally I use JPEGMini Pro (offline) before uploading and have been testing Imagify (WordPress plugin) for online optimization.
But I couldn't see myself compressing as heavily as it recommends.
@scottwyden I'd encourage you to play around with the different options in the image-by-image comparison. You should be able to find a common middle ground that doesn't sacrifice quality but still improves your file sizes.
@kellysutton there wasn't anything usable there. It appears the system doesn't look for images already compressed. It just wants to further compress images even when already done, which in turn degrades the quality further. Sorry ;/
Thanks for making this! Great to get a full report and also a 2nd oppinion. I used Imagify for this, but never got a comparison to other sites.
It didn't take too long to run the report, and it looks like it worked properly for my site.
As others have said, the image adjustments were a surprise - very pleasant surprise!
@grooveplex It's a common side effect of using the `type="url"` HTML input type. It's a pretty unfortunate choice on the part of the W3C that there is no way to specify that the URL can be protocol-less.
PlanetScale Boost