"Caching" Objects on Browser

I have a situation where I need to send complex large images and container controls (Which I will call STUFF) to users with very very low bandwidth. I do not mind an initial load time lag, but I need the UI to be snappy when the user needs it.

I am thinking that I could cache the STUFF somehow on load, but IM not sure the best way to use xojo to do this.

Some initial thoughts:

Make all the STUFF.visible = False and toggle that
Put the STUFF way off the screen and Move it Like STUFF.left=4500000 --> STUFF.left =25
Put Images in 1 pixel by one pixel image wells and inflate/enlarge them up demand?

Perhaps apply a style to the STUFF that makes it the same color as the background and then make it visible?

Ideas?

[quote=156191:@Jay Menna]I have a situation where I need to send complex large images and container controls (Which I will call STUFF) to users with very very low bandwidth. I do not mind an initial load time lag, but I need the UI to be snappy when the user needs it.

I am thinking that I could cache the STUFF somehow on load, but IM not sure the best way to use xojo to do this.

Some initial thoughts:

Make all the STUFF.visible = False and toggle that
Put the STUFF way off the screen and Move it Like STUFF.left=4500000 → STUFF.left =25
Put Images in 1 pixel by one pixel image wells and inflate/enlarge them up demand?

Perhaps apply a style to the STUFF that makes it the same color as the background and then make it visible?

Ideas?[/quote]

Preload the pictures : http://documentation.xojo.com/index.php/WebPicture.Preload

Also, you may want to use image size reduction techniques, such as offered by several online services listed here reduce image size at DuckDuckGo . I have used that in the 90’s, in the modem era, when bandwidth was a luxury. Gaining 20 or 30% load time on a large image can make a world of difference.

I quickly tried the first link
http://www.imageoptimizer.net
on the ShuttleLaunch.png picture from the Xojo examples. It went from 599 KB down to 313 KB with the normal quality compression setting (there are 6 different levels). That is not far from 50%. Yet, I looked at the two pictures in two browser windows side by side, and I cannot see the differences.