In article b30c843f53.r...@user.minijem.plus.com, Richard Porter
r...@minijem.plus.com wrote:
I've encountered a minor irritation caused by a stupid web authoring
mistake. The RBWM Recycling page at
http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/wm_recycling.htm contains two images which
are delivered at 2440 x
On 22 Apr 2013 Tim Hill wrote:
I have reported this to
the council but I won't hold my breath for a correction.
Seems okay two days later, Monday.
Yes, I've now had a message to say they've resized the images.
The problem is that as soon as these images hove into view the page
becomes
On 21 Apr 2013 Brian Jordan wrote:
In article b30c843f53.r...@user.minijem.plus.com,
Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote:
[Snip]
The problem is that as soon as these images hove into view the page
becomes incredibly slow and clunky to move around. I would hazard a
guess that NS
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 10:06:49AM +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
I don't think there's anything I can do other than that. I was
wondering whether there's a design reason why NS doesn't keep a copy
of the resized image in its cache, which would save a lot of
processing time in such
On 21 Apr 2013 Rob Kendrick wrote:
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 10:06:49AM +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
I don't think there's anything I can do other than that. I was
wondering whether there's a design reason why NS doesn't keep a copy
of the resized image in its cache, which would save a lot of
I've encountered a minor irritation caused by a stupid web authoring
mistake. The RBWM Recycling page at
http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/wm_recycling.htm
contains two images which are delivered at 2440 x 1479 px and
displayed at 122 x 89 px - the files are 340 times the size they need
to be! I have
In article b30c843f53.r...@user.minijem.plus.com,
Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote:
[Snip]
The problem is that as soon as these images hove into view the page
becomes incredibly slow and clunky to move around. I would hazard a
guess that NS is continually struggling to resize the
