Redwood Pergola - Garden Structures Bussiness

[yellingtuna]

Hey guys, we run an online Garden Structures business. You might have seen some of these products out there.

If you're looking for something to accent your backyard this summer, look no further! http://www.Garden-Craft.com

You can also like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gardencraftllc
Or, follow us on Twitter: @GardenCraftLLC




"MAKE YOUR BACKYARD INTO A VACATION OASIS!

Make a cozy outdoor living space in your own backyard!


Create a beautiful outdoor living space with our sturdy and solidly constructed pergolas. Imagine vines or hanging plants cascading down creating a cozy outdoor living room. We do not build clumsy vinyl or aluminum pergolas. Instead all of our outdoor furniture is crafted from American sourced lumber! With this pergola you can seamlessly hang plants from the wood beams! Just screw your plant hook directly into the beams!

From Redwood to Douglass Fir, we have an outdoor piece to suit you!

All Garden Craft products are Proudly Hand Crafted in the USA."

[yellingtuna]

Never updated this post! In 2013 we won the Blue Ribbon at the San Diego County Fairs Garden Show!!

Our Del Mar Edition (named for the event) pergola took home the prize!






Additionally, the website has been updated allot. Feel free to give constructive criticism! I'm newer to web development, so any pointers would be great!

www.garden-craft.com

[acbaldwin]

Nice stuff! From a webdev point of view, you have several places you can speed up your site - for example on this page:
http://www.garden-craft.com/index.php/custom-pergolas

Your first image is only viewed at 601px wide - however, the image itself is 2448px wide. Which means your viewer's computer is downloading a huge 2448px image (roughly 3MB in this case) and then downsizing it to 601px. It would be much faster for them, and much better on bandwidth for both of you, if you offered the image itself at the resolution that they'll be viewing it at. And in .png instead of .jpg for even better performance. For example, running your 2.8MB .jpg through tinypng.com's compression results in a 545kb image with no visible loss in quality. - that will load six times faster for your client, while using up 1/6th of your bandwidth.

Now if you did the same thing, and then resized it down to your delivery size (601px wide), you end up going from 2.8MB down to 118k - 24 times smaller and faster for both you and them.

And if you want to still offer them the ability to see your image in extreme detail, I'd link the small, compressed 601px image to the 2448px (but still compressed) image so they view normal quality by default, but still have the option to go really high quality.

That's my only gripe from the web perspective, just loads slow.

Feel free to shoot questions my way, I'm happy to help.

[jkennedy1007]

Nice builds Johnny

Great advice Andrew

[yellingtuna]

Nice stuff! From a webdev point of view, you have several places you can speed up your site - for example on this page:
http://www.garden-craft.com/index.php/custom-pergolas

Your first image is only viewed at 601px wide - however, the image itself is 2448px wide. Which means your viewer's computer is downloading a huge 2448px image (roughly 3MB in this case) and then downsizing it to 601px. It would be much faster for them, and much better on bandwidth for both of you, if you offered the image itself at the resolution that they'll be viewing it at. And in .png instead of .jpg for even better performance. For example, running your 2.8MB .jpg through tinypng.com's compression results in a 545kb image with no visible loss in quality. - that will load six times faster for your client, while using up 1/6th of your bandwidth.

Now if you did the same thing, and then resized it down to your delivery size (601px wide), you end up going from 2.8MB down to 118k - 24 times smaller and faster for both you and them.

And if you want to still offer them the ability to see your image in extreme detail, I'd link the small, compressed 601px image to the 2448px (but still compressed) image so they view normal quality by default, but still have the option to go really high quality.

That's my only gripe from the web perspective, just loads slow.

Feel free to shoot questions my way, I'm happy to help.

Your completely right! I appreciate you bringing attention to that.. I wouldn't have thought about it. I went ahead and skrank down the photos and improved my bandwith as a result. Thanks! That's exactly why I asked for another perspective!

[yellingtuna]

Nice builds Johnny

Great advice Andrew

Thank You!!

[acbaldwin]

Your completely right! I appreciate you bringing attention to that.. I wouldn't have thought about it. I went ahead and skrank down the photos and improved my bandwith as a result. Thanks! That's exactly why I asked for another perspective!

Happy to help! And you're right, I believe 'skrank' is the technical term!