Prevent all SecurePay data entered from being erased when error is made?

[schoolboy]

we have actually never had a complaint about our page load speeds after nearly 65K customers. Believe me, our base would complain : )

Not strictly correct... these days, web shoppers open several sites on the browser tabs and switch between them, deciding which site to buy from based on several key factors - ease-of-use being amongst the top, along with price.

I don't see Google Analytics being used on your site, but I would be very interested to see the bounce rate. If it is higher than 35% then my point has validity.

It is center columned, they read the product description or scroll past it, they then have a bright blue add to cart at the bottom. Again, we have an average of 300-400 orders per day, doesn't seem to be an issue. Our site is tech-oriented, simplifying is relative. Amazon is a pretty damn 'cluttered' site. I appreciate your critique, that you took the time to do it, but I strongly disagree.

Allow me to chuckle quietly... I had one of our long-standing clients say the same thing to me in November last year... they were convinced that the market LOVED their site, and pointed to "strong" orders.

After much discussion, I persuaded them to speed things up, focus the customer, simplify the UX and get the checkout procedure streamlined... In January I implemented the changes and the year-on-year sales for January were 322% higher than last year, and the increase over December 2012 was nearly double.

I last monitored the revenues on Feb 15th and revenues had already passed those for the whole of January...

Maybe you are happy with 300 to 400 orders a day, but perhaps it is possible to double these...

Just de-clutter your site and make it more user-friendly.

(PS: I did not see an add to cart blue button... as the images load sequentially, it probably did not get time to load. After waiting nearly 95 seconds for all the clutter to load I left the page...)

[kobra]

We are using Image Handler

Not being used as path to you image is

/images/evod_4.png

Instead of being bmz_cache/???????????
Your large images waste bandwidth and slow page loading
For an approx 2x2 image - many of your image files exceed 500,000KB
Browsers only display at 72dpi SO
144x144 = 20736KB all else is wasted

[gotlogos]

Its possible the Image Handler is not installed. I may be mistaken, I think I was speaking of the Additional Images mod. I'll check Image handler.

I hate using JPEG compression as it introduces artifacts and softens the image, especially in the area of text annotations within an image.

Anyway thanks to both kobra and schoolboy, I'll see if there is something I can do to reduce page load starting with the Image Handler mod.

[gotlogos]

I am going to try to install the Image Handler mod. Before I do do I have to do any prep or the mod will automatically work in a live environment that already has a ton of images on it? I do understand I need to have GD or ImageMagik installed on my server...

[kobra]

Before I do do I have to do any prep or the mod will automatically work in a live environment that already has a ton of images on it?

As for any thing - I suggest that you backup all files and your database before

Then just follow instructions

[schoolboy]

I am going to try to install the Image Handler mod. Before I do do I have to do any prep or the mod will automatically work in a live environment that already has a ton of images on it? I do understand I need to have GD or ImageMagik installed on my server...

Don't "over-fuss" with images. The vast majority of people will not be using high-resolution Apple-Mac 42-inch monitors. Their screen will simply not be capable of rendering images to that degree of clarity - so all the extra resources you are forcing people to endure has absolutely no beneficial effect (as Kobra has pointed out - you are forcing people to use 950% more processing than is necessary.)

Irrespective of the resolution YOU have saved your images, about 75% of your visitors will see them at 72 DPI. The remainder may have higher resolution monitors of up to 120dpi.

You need to base your design decisions on the CUSTOMER experience... not on what you see on your own (or your graphic designer's) fancy high-res Apple. Graphic designers in general are useless at working out what's best for web rendition and are ignorant of the procedures of optimising jpegs for website use. I work with scores of them and not a single one has any real idea of how to construct images for web use.

The BEST quality (we have found) is 120 DPI JPG. In general, we advise clients to use images with an aspect of 750 wide by 600 deep, and to compress them so that they are UNDER 150kb in size. And if at all possible, under 100kb.

Photoshop will ensure the best quality as it is the best tool on the market.

The best part of Image Handler is that it will immediately start working with your current images, and creates "cached" images in the bmz_cache folder.

Your server needs GD or ImageMagic - (Most hosts have one or the other).

But you will be better off using JPG, not PNG... as I said, the "quality" you think people are seeing is fallacious. The quality of the image is entirely dependent on their screen.

[gotlogos]

Thanks - I know when I do save in PS, I save for web at 72dpi, but I will double check if that is actually what I am doing. I think when you save in JPG and even with maximum quality it is not nearly as large of a file as a PNG and if you max quality (12 on the PS quality scale) everything should be ok...I just do heavy annotation sometimes and don't like when the lettering gets 'soft'.