Careful there NT - you just reverted some of my updated images by compressing and uploading old versions.
--John Rumm 01:36, 19 September 2007 (BST)
Not starting an edit war honest ;-)
I did a batch convert of the images to reduce their file size, and attempt to maintain the quality a bit. The <name>2 versions seemed a bit ropey in terms of grain and compression artefacts. I uploaded the images under their original names so as not to trample on yours. I reverted the doc to use the old names for the moment. (that also fixed the problem of the out of date pictures)
See if you are happy with these. If not, I have a "save for web" activity contained in a action ready to automated against a directory of images - so I can re-do all of them at a different level of compression in about 10 secs flat.
--John Rumm 02:09, 19 September 2007 (BST)
I didnt overwrite any of the existing image files, theyre all there. When you've got them settled content wise, a page over 1.6M is pretty big. I did compress them by 10x, hopefully a good compromise can be found as and when. NT 09:59, 19 September 2007 (BST)
Yup, I realise you didn't overwrite the files (main problem was you got four images that were out of date). Note that now I have overwritten them with optimised ones. So going back to the original image links in the page pulls in the smaller ones (but remember to do a refresh in your browser otherwise it will use its cached ones since the names have not changed).
The total size of all my images on the page in now about 300KB, and the text size under 8K, which seems reasonable. I can take them down further, but 300K is not that unreasonable even on dialup.
--John Rumm 14:36, 19 September 2007 (BST)
Sounds great to me NT 00:30, 20 September 2007 (BST)
Brilliant original article; I added my tuppence worth (hope the owner doesn't mind but does change the wording). Mungo (contact via http://henent.co.uk/)
No problems here ;-) Ta for the input. --John Rumm 00:12, 8 July 2008 (BST)