Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'll work in a project to improve the website. I recommended few best practices for the website like:
Eliminate render-blocking JavaScript and CSS in above-the-fold
content
Enable compression
Minify JavaScript
Prioritize visible content
Optimize images
Minify CSS
Minify HTML
All this changes are based in the https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/. But each time I checked the website I had a different score from the same site.
What I would like, is a place (software, add-on or website) to get a score of a live website and save this information to check again after the changes.
http://yslow.org
Does all of this in spades, can be installed as an extension in all major browsers. Source and command line versions are also available.
Use Pingdom Website Speed Test.
It tests everything from performance grade to load time, content types, etc. It's fantastic!
http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/
Avoid missing images or files
Set the right expiration times for each file type
Minify + Join + Compress CSS & JS
Use CDN content delivery network on larger sites
Set JS file/s at the end whenever possible
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I've seen Chrome extensions that claim to do such thing, but the chat page they provide are all separate page from the original web page, which is really inconvenient. Is there existing plugin that can do this? I may want to build one myself but I'm guessing there may be some permission issue, since that would be showing content from 3rd party.
Is it possible to insert content like a chat box into all different web pages using Chrome extension?
Yes, there is.
This one does exactly what you want, works for HTTPS sites as well since the connection to server this extension use is under HTTPS. It inserts a chat box to the original page and you can change the size of the chatbox or minimize it.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chat-anywhere/bldcellajihanglphncgjmceklbibjkk
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
What are the fundamentals to protect the source codes of commercial HTML/CSS and JavaScript files on their demos in a market?
Come on, please don't mark this question as off-topic as I know I can try to:
Disable the right click.
Disable the [Ctrl + Shift + i].
Disable the [Ctrl + u].
Learn and use a JavaScript obfuscator.
I want to know all the fundamentals to protect my commercial codes as we all need to know.
Is an obfuscator enough for JScript? How about for CSS3 animations and effects?
Any right way to do this? Is there a standard open source or any other tricks for this?
Obfuscating your JS/CSS will be your best bet. If the demo has to work, then those files have to be downloaded to the client's machine.
From then onward, your files are in possession of the client and you can't but just obfuscate those to give the client a hard time to figure your code out.
How can you disable F12 which launches Developer Console? And what about Context Menu key on the keyboard, which can be easily used to circumvent the disabled right click?
If you want fail-proof method, then just don't have a demo at all or have limited options available in it.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been playing with this rather spiffing online embeddable image editor from Aviary, and it does exactly what I need it to, namely:
embeddable in my site as HTML/JS
reasonably priced
only basic, fun features
completely idiot proof so even the most ham-fisted can thrash their way to something passable; or to put it another way, I don't want/need a traditional image editing interface like Photoshop - the way that Aviary have done it is pretty much spot on for my needs
However, in the documentation, they indicate that this is only suitable for web-resolution images, while I need to allow users to edit hi-res images as they will eventually be sent to a printer.
Does anyone know of anything comparable to this Aviary editor that can work with hi-res images?
Have you tried pixlr? As far as I'm aware, that editor is hi-res-capable.
In answer to my own question, it turns out that if you pay for the Enterprise version of the software, then full resolution is supported.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am wanting to load javascript and css files via a resource loader. I was originally using LabJs but I found YepNope more elegant and easier to work with in my scenario. However I am finding it devastatingly slow, which is odd as apparently it is comparable to LabJs in speed on most things.
One thing I do have are Etags which I am sure will slow everything down as its still requesting from the server rather than just working off the client cache.
Anyway there isnt much outside of the main YepNope site, and they havent released a new version with the fixes on their issues list in a while, so I was wondering what other options there are out there...
My requirements are:
Needs to load Css and Javascript
Needs to do them all in parallel
Can be loaded via Javascript
I wish YepNope was a bit more active but wanted to weigh up the other options...
I would throw require.js up for consideration. It will dynamically add script and css tags to the <head> so it works nicely asynchronously. It will also optimize all your js into one file so if you project is like mine you'll have dozens of js files in development (I think we have about 100) but only 1 for production.
The only thing I haven't got working yet is the optimization of the css files though apparently it has been done.
Good luck
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
In Django 1.3, django.contrib.staticfiles provides a nice "blessed" solution to managing static files, like a site's CSS, Javascript, and images.
However, I don't see an obvious way to integrate arbitrary static file preprocessors (concat/minify CSS/JS, spritesheet autogen a la SmartSprite, etc.) with the staticfiles app.
Do any projects/snippets/solutions exist for this that will integrate well with django.contrib.staticfiles?
django-compressor have support for this, asking you to add 'compressor.finders.CompressorFinder' to the STATICFILES_FINDERS setting. I guess you can use or spy their code to see what they have done to achieve this.
django-compressor is definitely my preferred option because of how easy it is to just wrap blocks of css and js includes and have them compressed, however it does not do sprite sheets.
So you could either build in an additional processor to django-compressor using spritesticker or use django-media-bundler instead which does both but takes more effort to setup.