Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Plugin Author nosilver4u

    (@nosilver4u)

    use a different test, or use max lossy compression. They are recommending quality 50 (even though the quality level isn’t stored in the image, so they don’t even know for sure). tools.pingdom.com or the Google Pagespeed test are better if you’re only looking for lossless compression instead of maximum compression.

    Thread Starter triknutz

    (@triknutz)

    Thanks for the quick response. On PageSpeed Insights, only 3 images are coming up as requiring compression and they are all in the News/blog area of my homepage.

    Optimize the following images to reduce their size by 197.9KiB (95% reduction).
    Compressing and resizing https://www.drinkportuguesewine.co.uk/…p-content/uploads/2016/06/Drink-Pink.jpg could save 82.3KiB (97% reduction).
    Compressing and resizing https://www.drinkportuguesewine.co.uk/…oads/2016/07/Portugal-Euro-2016-flag.jpg could save 76.7KiB (95% reduction).
    Compressing and resizing https://www.drinkportuguesewine.co.uk/…wp-content/uploads/2016/06/EU-weeps1.jpg could save 38.8KiB (93% reduction).

    I am afraid I have no idea how to interpret the results I got from pingdom. Where should i be looking?

    Plugin Author nosilver4u

    (@nosilver4u)

    So focusing on the pagespeed results, as they make the optimize images a bit more obvious. They tell you compressing AND resizing, which is only half true. The real truth is that the images just need to be resized. They are being displayed at 120×120, but the actual images being loaded are much larger. Thanks to the srcset attribute that WP inserts, the damage isn’t as bad at 174×174, but that is still almost 50% of the image wasted. The fix depends on whether that 174×174 is actually appropriate for other areas of your site. If those is no other place on your site that displays images at a size between 120 and 174, then I would change the Media settings for that resize to 120 instead of 174.
    If that isn’t one of the default sizes (thumbnail, medium, medium_large, or large), then you can use this plugin to introduce a new size at 120×120: https://wordpress.org/plugins/simple-image-sizes/

    One you’ve got the dimensions fixed, then you will need to regenerate thumbnails for those images (using the Regenerate Thumbnails plugin naturally). That probably won’t satisfy pagespeed, but it will work pretty well. The tricky part is that image is displayed at a larger size when you click on that post, so you may not want to actually resize the image to 120×120. If you don’t mind it displaying at 120×120 in both places, then you can just resize it manually within WordPress, and update the featured image for each post.

    Further reading here: https://ewww.io/2014/12/05/pagespeed-says-my-images-need-more-work/

    Thread Starter triknutz

    (@triknutz)

    174×174 is the default thumbnail size for everything on the website, including the Shop pages, so I am not sure I want to change it. If resizing is not an option, does that mean I am only left with lossy optimisation?

    I had a look at the plugins you recommended. Hammy looks unsupported and based on what you said, i am not sure simple-image-sizes is appropriate. Will that plugin let me select a “homepage thumbnail size” of 120×120 that will not affect the rest of the website?

    Thread Starter triknutz

    (@triknutz)

    I am also struggling to understand why PageSpeed Insights has only flagged those 3 images, when WPT is suggesting that optimising them will only save 1.6-2.8KB each? WPT would much rather see me optimise the slider where I can save 40.3-147.2KB

    Plugin Author nosilver4u

    (@nosilver4u)

    I think you’re right about HammyYeah, you want Simple Image Sizes, it lets you define custom sizes, name them whatever you want, and then those will get generated for any future uploads without interfering with the existing resizes registered on your site.

    The difference between the two tools is that Pagespeed never suggests lossy compression. They specifically state lossless compression, so that there is zero quality loss involved. WPT, on the other hand, suggests a ridiculously low level of 50. I don’t know where they came up with that number, but the level of 82 that WordPress uses is much more acceptable to viewers (based on actual research).

    Thread Starter triknutz

    (@triknutz)

    Thanks for your help with this.

Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • The topic ‘webpagetest.org shows images not compressed.’ is closed to new replies.