JoomlArt Forums 32,862 posts

[Mohamed Moutia Friend Mohamed MoutiaJoin date: September 2014Posts: 10Downloads:38Uploads:1 Thanks: 4 Thanked: 1 times in 1 posts]

#139307

Hi every body,

Here is my new site with ja_quartz template.

I’ll appreciate all you feed back and advises

Hawaii Islands Travel

[wooohanetworks Friend wooohanetworksJoin date: September 2008Posts: 1239Downloads:0Uploads:2 Thanks: 148 Thanked: 138 times in 41 posts]

#296726

The background looks too empty, besides that because it only imitates a shore / beach, it does not make the site look alive. Rather some real photography of the hawaii shores or, but not the better alternative, an animated background similar like this one but with more content on ti, like people, umbrellas, sports activity etc.. Right now, it looks very static.

The problem is that somehow the background makes the site lame, when this is the right word.:)

[imsleepy Friend imsleepyJoin date: January 2009Posts: 451Downloads:0Uploads:0 Thanks: 94 Thanked: 45 times in 1 posts]

#296743

First let me say if I wasn’t a patient person, I would not have waited for it to load. Nothing for nearly a minute, finally a header. Entire site took almost 2 minutes to load completely.

I have to agree with above… I guess you could argue the background looks like sand, but nothing flows from the header image. You have nice blue sky header then all the brown and gold. I would rethink the color choices so that everthing flows better.

Not much content either. Lots of Google ads and photos, login, stats etc, but no content. You may want to consider something, news maybe?, to liven up the content some.

[we2solutions Friend we2solutionsJoin date: September 2014Posts: 526Downloads:0Uploads:21 Thanks: 136 Thanked: 100 times in 1 posts]

#296809

Hi moutia,

i had some problems abt your color combination.i think blue color is for sea and light brown for beach.but in the home page your header is beautiful but in the right column you used pure dark blue..i think if you used light color their it will ok.but all these comments from my view.you had independance to do your own.

but i like your picture gallery much :)all the best 🙂

thanks

[sunrise Friend sunriseJoin date: February 2007Posts: 920Downloads:0Uploads:5 Thanks: 103 Thanked: 166 times in 114 posts]

#296941

Hi moutia,

Hawaii is a beautiful place, I’m sure. Not that I have been there, but there are so many nice pictures from there. The pictures you have on the slideshow are also nice, but in my opinion there is too much white to fade out the pictures.

I wish you luck with the site, lots of visitors and members.

[sfpkent Friend sfpkentJoin date: October 2008Posts: 829Downloads:0Uploads:100 Thanks: 310 Thanked: 75 times in 1 posts]

#296944

<em>@imsleepy 118716 wrote:</em><blockquote>First let me say if I wasn’t a patient person, I would not have waited for it to load. Nothing for nearly a minute, finally a header. Entire site took almost 2 minutes to load completely.</blockquote>

I have to agree with imsleepy, coz I am not a patient person either, there are lot of impatient people out there, loading speed is very important.

But, overall is very good. I like the site, just the loading speed.

[Mohamed Moutia Friend Mohamed MoutiaJoin date: September 2014Posts: 10Downloads:38Uploads:1 Thanks: 4 Thanked: 1 times in 1 posts]

#297076

Thanks to all for your feed back.

I wanted just to know your connexion speed because for me the site loading time is ok 14 seconds.

Also can any body give me some advises on how to optimize JA_Quart template to load more fast .

Regards.

[didima Friend didimaJoin date: September 2007Posts: 394Downloads:2Uploads:6 Thanks: 12 Thanked: 31 times in 3 posts]

#297087

nice site, summer cant wait now

[sfpkent Friend sfpkentJoin date: October 2008Posts: 829Downloads:0Uploads:100 Thanks: 310 Thanked: 75 times in 1 posts]

#297093

Hi moutia,

Unless you built your website only for yourself to view it, otherwise, you have to optimize your site coz you built your site for whole world.

It doesn’t matter what the internet speed we have, you as web designer has to optimize it to suit our internet speed.

Tips to optimize:
– your pictures file sizes
– script languages

Good luck. 🙂

[Arvind Chauhan Moderator Arvind ChauhanJoin date: September 2014Posts: 3835Downloads:74Uploads:92 Thanks: 1240 Thanked: 1334 times in 848 posts]

#297283

In agreement to “imsleepy” and “sfpkent” . The site loading time is poor.

Ran the site through http://analyze.websiteoptimization.com.

Http reuests : 184
Loading time (@ 56 K ) : 265 secs or 42 secs on T1 connection.
13 JS and 15 CSS files.

The site needs to be lighter, css images itself are 124.

[wooohanetworks Friend wooohanetworksJoin date: September 2008Posts: 1239Downloads:0Uploads:2 Thanks: 148 Thanked: 138 times in 41 posts]

#297286

<em>@drarvindc 119404 wrote:</em><blockquote>In agreement to “imsleepy” and “sfpkent” . The site loading time is poor.

Ran the site through http://analyze.websiteoptimization.com.

Http reuests : 184
Loading time (@ 56 K ) : 265 secs or 42 secs on T1 connection.
13 JS and 15 CSS files.

The site needs to be lighter, css images itself are 124.</blockquote>

This is the analyzation of the JA Quartz Demo, and so you see what causes here the numbers, where I would say, how can someone make this one as good as it should be, when it is already so bad by default, regarding the tool:

<blockquote>Web Page Speed Report

URL: http://www.joomlart.com/templates_demo.php?template=ja_quartz
Title: JoomlArt.com – Joomla/Mambo Professional Templates – Templates Demo
Date: Report run on Sun Mar 22 08:54:58EDT2009
Diagnosis

Global Statistics

Total HTTP Requests: 163
Total Size: 2603952 bytes
Object Size Totals

Object type Size (bytes) Download @ 56K (seconds) Download @ T1 (seconds)
HTML: 67737 14.10 0.96
HTML Images: 2089263 426.39 21.07
CSS Images: 215483 59.75 17.94
Total Images: 2304746 486.14 39.01
Javascript: 168219 35.73 3.09
CSS: 63250 15.61 3.34
Multimedia: 0 0.00 0.00
Other: 0 0.00 0.00
External Objects

External Object QTY
Total HTML: 3
Total HTML Images: 50
Total CSS Images: 84
Total Images: 134
Total Scripts: 11
Total CSS imports: 15
Total Frames: 2
Total Iframes: 0
Download Times*

Connection Rate Download Time
14.4K 2050.79 seconds
28.8K 1041.70 seconds
33.6K 897.54 seconds
56K 551.56 seconds
ISDN 128K 191.53 seconds
T1 1.44Mbps 46.40 seconds</blockquote>

Design or Performance? And check some others of the new ones, they will all fail the test and the users will not tear down all the design they pay for and want, when they should have to remove all that what makes the template and also could have used other ones with no design and effects. The effects and design matter here, so I do not know if it makes sense to come users with this tool as literally no one could use this as a point of changing their sites, the only thing it would mean, would be to not use the templates as they all do not perform good by default.

The same test with Rockettheme.com templates could not be done, as any test returns with the same result, same numbers, but here at the JA Demo server, the tool is actually able to test each single installation of the demos.

With Shape5.com, I tested SeaOfGlass and same result, regarding the test, no one should even think about using it. Even more red marked warnings than with the JA Templates, although the site itself is smaller in size and only required 126 http requests.

<blockquote>Web Page Speed Report

URL: http://www.shape5.com/demo/seaofglass/
Title: Sea of Glass – Home
Date: Report run on Sun Mar 22 09:27:46EDT2009
Diagnosis

Global Statistics

Total HTTP Requests: 126
Total Size: 511427 bytes
Object Size Totals

Object type Size (bytes) Download @ 56K (seconds) Download @ T1 (seconds)
HTML: 68976 13.95 0.57
HTML Images: 155768 32.44 2.23
CSS Images: 75170 35.78 21.20
Total Images: 230938 68.22 23.43
Javascript: 164670 34.42 2.47
CSS: 46843 10.54 1.45
Multimedia: 0 0.00 0.00
Other: 0 0.00 0.00
External Objects

External Object QTY
Total HTML: 1
Total HTML Images: 7
Total CSS Images: 104
Total Images: 111
Total Scripts: 8
Total CSS imports: 6
Total Frames: 0
Total Iframes: 0
Download Times*

Connection Rate Download Time
14.4K 421.58 seconds
28.8K 223.39 seconds
33.6K 195.08 seconds
56K 127.13 seconds
ISDN 128K 56.42 seconds
T1 1.44Mbps 27.91 seconds</blockquote>

I really do not know what this can bring the regular JA users or Joomla users to run this test, only way around would be to not use Joomla and not to have fancy sites.

And what really slows down sites is not the http requests or images, it is script conflicts and MySQL errors. When you have conflicting scripts, this makes sites really slow, when you have errors in the MySQL DB, this makes the sites really really really slow, so the first to check for errors is if you use any conflicting modules and if your DB runs queries that it should not run and is filling up with data it does not need. And those MySQL errors can come up when you move a db to a new sever, install some module that is code wise written with errors, and so on and so on. When the demo site is fast and you have a good server and your site you make is later slower than that, you can easily figure out what caused it. Either you have a poor server or you installed something that is conflicting or messing up the db or you make some core changes in the site and messed up this part.

Joomlart.com has around 120 http requests and is app. 1,2 mb large. But now comes the hammer, why is RTs site performing well on the frontend with such results that should lead to the conclusion that the site should not even be usable when I refer to the test tool only:

<blockquote>Web Page Speed Report

URL: http://www.rockettheme.com
Title: Joomla Templates and phpBB3 Styles – RocketTheme
Date: Report run on Sun Mar 22 10:06:19EDT2009
Diagnosis

Global Statistics

Total HTTP Requests: 332
Total Size: 1421384 bytes
Object Size Totals

Object type Size (bytes) Download @ 56K (seconds) Download @ T1 (seconds)
HTML: 6336 1.46 0.23
HTML Images: 77112 16.57 1.61
CSS Images: 1127077 286.82 68.17
Total Images: 1204189 303.39 69.78
Javascript: 124238 25.96 1.86
CSS: 86621 18.86 2.06
Multimedia: 0 0.00 0.00
Other: 0 0.00 0.00
External Objects

External Object QTY
Total HTML: 1
Total HTML Images: 6
Total CSS Images: 311
Total Images: 317
Total Scripts: 6
Total CSS imports: 8
Total Frames: 0
Total Iframes: 0
Download Times*</blockquote>

So please rethink if it makes sense to post those results of tests you made with member sites here at such an early point of time, as they should really have some script conflicts or MySQL errors that cause those bad loading times in the primary row of analysis why those sites are so slow. I would recommend to see if the site is already slow after installation of the quickstart and loading of the demo content, as when so, do a new install, as something may have been going wrong with the MySQL at time of loading the demo content into it and a new install may resolve these issues. This happens quite often.

And after it was cleared that there may be such errors and after having resolved those, members surely can do a test with the tool you mention and even should use all the techniques mentioned on the site in your signature, but not before or even forgetting about all the others potential reasons why their sites are slow, as when you make those tunings without resolving the other errors, you may see no change in the direct site performance at all, but maybe get better test results;). Otherwise, those tunings should be done thoroughly and should not cause other new conflicts or errors, so the best is always to hire a pro to do those.

[Author]

Posts