jcarrier

Do you think that the webpage test analysis make sense or is overkill? In other words, is there a way to achieve a green checkmark for all the meta slider compressed images. Or is just more trouble than its worth in the long run…

Compression and Progressive detailed stats are show in the following link:

http://www.webpagetest.org/performance_optimization.php?test=131014_FE_PRN&run=1&cached=0

As you can seee, Compress Img (third column) shows FAILED or WARNING for all meta slider images; and Progressive (fourth column) shows green checkmarks except for one WARNING for one meta slider image.

I can temporarily disable hotlinkiing if that will help your efforts. I have that enabled via my rerouted DNS that also serves as a CDN simultaneously. Please advise.

@nosilver4u – This is what I am seeing currently in my Optimized Images Table:

…wp-content/uploads/image-1381757410-335297968-300×138.jpg Reduced by 0.6% (87.0 B)
…wp-content/uploads/image-1381761017-1360418446-300×138.jpg Reduced by 2.9% (602.0 B)
…wp-content/uploads/image-1381764609-1861765140-300×138.jpg Reduced by 2.4% (515.0 B)
…wp-content/uploads/image-1381765640-1162725296-300×138.jpg Reduced by 0.2% (24.0 B)

Can you confirm that the “reduced by” indicates compression not progressive jpeg optimization? If that is the case, shouldn’t the compression match with test results?

For example, the original image-1381757410-335297968-300×138.jpg is 14.24 KB and the Optimized Images Table shows image to be reduced by 0.6% (87B). Therefore, reduced image is 14.15 KB according to the Optimized Images Table.

Alternatively, webpage test shows that image-1381757410-335297968-300×138.jpg should compress from 14.24 KB to 10.1 KB (reduction of 4.1 KB).

Please let me know if I am missing something here. Thanks again.

If the images are compressed and optimized, then shouldn’t the compressed images section of the test also be 100%? Are the test results reflecting the true extent of the plugin to compress the images or are the images not being properly compressed?

Perhaps I am missing something here?

Here are the results that I am seeing based on the current four images:

Compress Images: 98/100
1,149.4 KB total in images, target size = 1,128.9 KB – potential savings = 20.5 KB

FAILED – (20.2 KB, compressed = 12.8 KB – savings of 7.4 KB) – http://www.worldnewsreader.com/wp-content/uploads/image-1381764609-1861765140-300×138.jpg
WARNING – (19.6 KB, compressed = 14.2 KB – savings of 5.4 KB) – http://www.worldnewsreader.com/wp-content/uploads/image-1381761017-1360418446-300×138.jpg
WARNING – (14.2 KB, compressed = 10.1 KB – savings of 4.1 KB) – http://www.worldnewsreader.com/wp-content/uploads/image-1381757410-335297968-300×138.jpg
WARNING – (12.3 KB, compressed = 8.7 KB – savings of 3.6 KB) – http://www.worldnewsreader.com/wp-content/uploads/image-1381765640-1162725296-300×138.jpg

@nosilver4u – Here are the tangible results of your hard work on this.

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/131014_HR_KN5/

I can ‘t thank you enough for the 100% progressive jpegs score!

@nosilver4u – Just so I understand the process at this point. Please confirm.

– I should download the Development Version (svn) from the repository

– The EWWW Image Optmizer plugin will now optimize images automatically based on images that are resized “on the fly” by the Meta Slider Pro plugin without any further settings required such as specifying directories in the EWWW Image Optimizer plugin settings menu.

This automatic optimization for “on the fly” created images is important as my site needs to constantly create images for the slider based on the most recent 15 posts. Also, I want to verify that the EWWW Image Optimizer will not impede any rendering performance for my website.

Please let me know if there is anything else that I need to do to make this work.

Much appreciated…

jcarrier

Thanks so much for the join collaboration on this. You guys are awesome!