I haven't Mark but from the names I assume they're aimed at cutting down file sizes for quicker download.
I use Photoshop Elements (I'm sure there are other utilities) which has a "Save For Web" option which reduces photos to 72dpi - no need for better resolution for displaying on a site - and also to reduce the physical pixel size of the photo to no larger than I want it displayed. i.e. if you have a 4000x3000 photo that you want on a page at 400x300, reduce it in size before uploading - don't upload at full size and put code on your page to tell the browser to scale it down.
Thanks Mick,
Yes, your assumption is right. I have quite a large iWeb site so I don't want to go through replacing all the pics, reflections and so on. Both these apps reduce lots of parts [both HTML and script code such as JavaScript, Java, LassoScript, CFscript, VBscript, Jscript, PHP, ASP, JSP, CSP, TPL and CSS. It also optimizes JPEG images and PNG images]- and seem well respected by those that use them. Its the way they interact with iWeb that I am not clear about. It seems one works in iWeb then optimises which produces another folder which is then loaded onto MobileMe - its that last step that I am not clear about as publishing from iWeb has always been a one-click event. I would be sorry to loose that convenience, if indeed I need to.
I very much doubt you'll be reducing the code and/or script by a significant amount it would be the pictures which, if uploaded at full size would waste space on the server as well as bandwidth downloading files which are many times bigger than needed. If the programs "compress" image files, I doubt that would give a significant saving unless your pictures run into hundreds and I'll be (very pleasantly) surprised if they can pick up from the code that the 4000x3000 image is destined to be displayed at 400x300 and reduce accordingly.
Apologies though as my scepticism has me dismissing these programs when I know nothing of them. I'm possibly doing them a grave disservice. Perhaps someone will come along who could answer "yes" to your original question.
In days past, the web industry has always tried to produce the smallest file sizes possible, whether HTML or images. It 'IS' still an issue if your audience is global or unknown, connections are not always "broadband", many are still on dial up or have restricted access.
It could be compared to a shop selling it's goods to their known customer base, they only need advertising or selling to those who can afford or want the goods, others don't really matter. The other comparison is to that of computer programs. In the past programs were made efficient or small, utilizing the smallest amount of memory and hard disk space. Now a days with memory being (relatively) cheap and hard disk drives huge, that seems to have gone by the wayside, it is no longer a requirement. It's cheaper not to bother!
So it all comes down to your audience or customer base. If those you want to have access to your website have the required access speed, why bother with trying to reduce your files to the smallest possible. iWeb does a relatively good job, so why bother doing anything else. It just makes life more difficult!
My only other comment would be is that if you understand what and why things happen then these decisions become easier. The trouble with iWeb and the like, is that they all hide this so you really don't know what happening. I would suggest a good book helps a lot and it is actually quite good fun experimenting!
Thank you both for such thoughtful replies - and Terry for the link to iWeb Valet. I have squirrled away a copy of my website and when I get a bit more time, and the weather isn't quite so good, I will play around with them.
I now understand that I will be not uploading to MobileMe directly from iWeb if I adopt one of them - a conceptual breakthrough!
Mark Ford 