A Look at HTML Optimizers

Home > Build > Design > Articles

by Paul Heslep

HTML optimizers have received a large amount of attention recently. All Webmasters should be concerned with the size of their files. Smaller files load faster, and faster loading pages stand a better chance of capturing the attention of your audience. Some of us tend to be a little too aggressive with trimming file size and often produce pages that do not have enough visual interest to keep the attention of the audience.

That is really the rub and the challenge we all face -- how do we get all those exciting images into an overly complex layout, yet still have the page be accessible to those who are not blessed with fast connections? To that end, several utilities have been built to "trim the fat" out of the pages you create. For many, these utilities are the greatest invention since 1-900 telephone dating clubs.

Yes, you detect a cynical note here. As a professional web page author, I am extremely skeptical of any application that claims to do my job for me. I was skeptical that Dreamweaver could negate the need to handcode, and was surprised to find that it can manage without hand coding pretty darn well. So I proceeded with this test with a cloud of cynicism, and a ray of hope. Here are the results of my tests using the two most popular optimizers

VSE Web site Turbo ($49.95)

As with other applications from VSE, I was pleased to find a refined interface, and a clearly understandable Preferences control panel that indicate the thoughtful design this company has become known for. Web site Turbo will optimize either a single file, or an entire folder. For my test I took the first three levels of the w3nation web site, totaling 573 files and 6.62 Megs (255 HTML files, 218 jpg's and gif's). Testing this number of files should simulate use on a fairly large site. On first run, I selected "Optimize Folder" and ran the application on every file contained in the site, without setting any of the preferences. The result was a savings of just over 500k! I was then presented with the option of viewing a detailed report in HTML. The report is comprehensive, and lists every single file that was trimmed, and how much space was saved.

When I went to test my new, slimmer home page, I found that it refused to load at all, in either Netscape or Internet Explorer.

At this point, I could go through the preferences and disable the removal of some of the tags, to allow my pages to continue to function, but I personally don't have time for that. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult, but it would cost me more time than I care to lose, so I'll have to give this application a big thumbs down for butchering my files. On the up side, I am amazed that Web site Turbo manages to salvage some file size from graphics that were carefully optimized in Fireworks, saving as much as 20%! Even more impressive is that it managed to do this while keeping the appearance of the graphics intact. Only 1 out of 5 files showed any visible jpg artifacts, and the amount of distortion was minimal and quite acceptable. A very impressive feat.

OptimaHTML (single user $8)

Like Web site Turbo, Optima HTML has an easy to understand interface, which greets you with the choice of optimizing either a single file or a folder. The preferences are also well laid out. When cut loose on the same folder, the savings were only a few dozen bytes. A little disappointing after the impressive savings from the VSE competitor. A quick look at the list of files optimized shows the reason why. Only two of my 255 HTML files were targeted. Why so many files were ignored I do not understand.

Individual files can be optimized one at the time, which seemed to work fine until I tried to open the slimmed down files. As before, they refused to load at all. As with VSE, I'm sure I could go through the preferences, and disable the removal of whatever tags that create this problem, but who has time for that? Unlike VSE Web site Turbo, Optima HTML does not touch the graphics files when you select "Optimize Folder". You can select the files individually, and like VSE you can squeeze a little extra size out of your graphics, this time about 18% on average, when used on Fireworks optimized jpg's. Again, some artifacts were introduced, but the savings almost justifies the quality loss.

If you do not own an image optimizer such as Fireworks, ImageReady or Debabelizer, and don't plan on spending the cash this might be an alternative. You might find this to be a useful tool for the price.

Conclusions:

Both of these applications remove implied tags (mostly closing tags) as well as unnecessary spaces, which can save precious bytes in your HTML. My personal opinion is that the savings do not justify the penalties.

Not every visitor uses Internet Explorer 5.0, and many of the alternative browsers are highly sensitive to the removal of implied tags. You may improve download times for the majority of your visitors by a second or more, but you may lose a percentage of your visitors entirely.

Which percentage is greater, the number of visitors you might retain if your page loaded a second or two quicker, or the number of visitors using more sensitive browsers that will be denied by your optimized page? At very best, it could be called a draw.

The reality is that those who have to wait for a download, are used to waiting. A 33.6 kbps modem user grows accustomed to the average download times and is usually not upset by pages that take 10 or 15 percent longer than average to load. Frankly it just doesn't seem worth the extra trouble.

As far as using these applications to batch process your jpg's and gif's, well, that might be worth it to many of you. Running dozens of files through Fireworks or ImageReady can get tedious (though there are batch optimization options).

As far as savings above what Fireworks gave me, remember that new artifacts were introduced. I had very carefully trimmed my graphics to the lowest acceptable quality, and while file size was reduced, so was the quality. I was able to manage approximately the same savings by using Fireworks to reduce the quality of the jpg's slightly, negating the usefulness of these applications.

Am I being overly harsh? Yes, absolutely. This is not a hobby, I make web pages for a living, and as with any tough job market, I have to produce the highest quality product I can. I am a perfectionist and these applications introduce flaws into my work that cause trouble and could even cause me to lose a client. For the hobbyist, if you have no passion or interest in learning proper techniques, then these utilities can definitely help you. Hobbyists with a passion or interest should not use these utilities since they will not help you master HTML skills. You can achieve maximum file size savings with careful planning, a good understanding of your graphics program, and good markup.