In the past I used Turtle for photo-albums of events with 200-600 pictures.
Now I gave Tiger a try.
When I uploaded it to my server I first thought that my provider has a speed-problem but then iI recognized that the local version from my ssd is nearly equal slow.
Can you confirm that this is currently a problem of the skin?
I'm seeing very slow thumbnail image loading, both on the poster's site and on yours. I've got a solid 66mpbs connection. If I scroll down, I'm often staring at a dozen gray boxes for a few seconds.
I think that "lazy loading" is one of those things that sounds better than it ever works. I've seen it used on more and more sites, and it's usually less usable than a simple "start at the top of the page and load all the images" site.
Your page is not as slow as mine (but also not very quick). Yours is (feeling) much faster because there are much less images on the same space because they are taller.
Yours: 5 rows with 5 images = 25
Mine: 8 rows with 5 images = 40
(Fullscreen on 2560x1440)
Some of it, of course, has to do with where we are in relation to the server (I'm on the East Coast of the U.S.). But on Laza's demo album, for example, if I scroll down beyond the thumbnails that are already showing, I don't get all of the thumbnails for a full 4 seconds.
Oddly, it doesn't get any faster even if the images are already in the browser cache, which I really don't understand.
Now I made the skin to load not only the visible page but also up and down one screen. Also I've removed the lag (of 100ms) which was introduced to avoid calling the lazy load function multiple times in short time. Now the skin is using a different technique to avoid this.
In the past I used Turtle for photo-albums of events with 200-600 pictures. Now I gave Tiger a try. When I uploaded it to my server I first thought that my provider has a speed-problem but then iI recognized that the local version from my ssd is nearly equal slow. Can you confirm that this is currently a problem of the skin?
Yes, the thumbnails were this big for the sake of folder thumbnails, but I've changed now the logic and made the higher resolution thumbs used for the folders (they're generated anyway). The default thumbnail size is set now to 240x180px which results in half the size of the current 360x270.
Yes, I should have stopped and rethink the lazyload/mathcheight routines from ground, because now they overload the CPU. I tried to fix it recently, but it's still sluggish. Monday I will fix it hopefully.