Lot of work to be done, isn't it? But even Google doesn't have 100/100 according to their page speed tool. We will keep on doing our job well and hopefully one day we will beat the 100/100 at page speed tool. We have too much work to be done yet.

The following images are resized in HTML or CSS. Serving scaled images could save 291.4KiB (71% reduction).

Sample url situation:
http://my-site.net/ow_userfiles/plugins/photo/photo_preview_6486.jpg is resized in HTML or CSS from 140x140 to 75x75. Serving a scaled image could save 12.5KiB (71% reduction).

........and I have 28 more url's w/the same issue.......

Quote from Michael I. Serving scaled images

Serving scaled images should be top priority in creating a efficient fast loading script, defer parsing JavaScript to reduce blocking of page rendering should be secondly important, Auto optimizing images, ALL images is also very important, this has been a long awaiting issue w/Oxwall script that is long over-due for correction.

Not background image, mostly image(s) that are missing width and/or height attributes are as follows:
ow_userfiles/plugins/base/avatars/avatar/
ow_userfiles/plugins/groups/  and
ow_userfiles/plugins/photo/photo_preview/
these add up after a while...


Details from Google:

When the browser lays out the page, it needs to be able to flow around replaceable elements such as images. It can begin to render a page even before images are downloaded, provided that it knows the dimensions to wrap non-replaceable elements around. If no dimensions are specified in the containing document, or if the dimensions specified don't match those of the actual images, the browser will require a reflow and repaint once the images are downloaded. To prevent reflows, specify the width and height of all images, either in the HTML <img> tag, or in CSS.

Current Page Speed libraries cannot detect when image dimensions are supplied through CSS. Although your site will be rendering faster, your Page Speed score will be affected. Keep this in mind when analyzing your site's score.

Page Speed recommends:
Specify dimensions that match those of the images themselves

Don't use width and height specifications to scale images on the fly. If an image file is actually 60 x 60 pixels, don't set the dimensions to 30 x 30 in the HTML or CSS. If the image needs to be smaller, scale it in an image editor and set its dimensions to match (see Optimize images for details.)

Be sure to specify dimensions on the image element or block-level parent

Be sure to set the dimensions on the <img>element itself, or a block-level parent. If the parent is not block-level, the dimensions will be ignored. Do not set dimensions on an ancestor that is not an immediate parent.

Read More

Example summary below after everything possible has been done on the Site Owner/Webmasters end including (Leverage browser caching) which when analyzed comes out to 8%, inserting the proper codes at .htaccess as follows will bring you up to 98% --------->

Header unset Pragma
FileETag None
Header unset ETag

<FilesMatch "\.(ico|jpg|jpeg|png|gif|js|css|swf|pdf|flv|mp3)$">
<IfModule mod_expires.c>
 ExpiresActive on
 ExpiresDefault "access plus 14 days"
 Header set Cache-Control "public"
</IfModule>
</FilesMatch>
<FilesMatch "\.(html|htm|xml|txt|xsl)$">
 Header set Cache-Control "max-age=7200, must-revalidate"
</FilesMatch>

this is something we shouldn't have to do,, no matter,, Oxwall script out of the box is at about a 52/100,  after doing pretty much all a site owner can do they will end up with around a 78/100 depending,,, you can see what is left to do, quite important stuff really and as I said, this is something Oxwall needs to tend to in order to make the script more efficient...

Now a YEAR later I see no-one has any ideas on this,,, Nice!!!

Quote from Michael I. Lot of work to be done, isn't it? But even Google doesn't have 100/100 according to their page speed tool. We will keep on doing our job well and hopefully one day we will beat the 100/100 at page speed tool. We have too much work to be done yet.

You may be correct on Google not being a 100/100 but even if we could render the Serving of scaled images, this would be a huge improvement...

Which by the way Google is a 98/100,, near perfect enough really..

Here is what i have done with my htaccess file. This brings me up to an overall of page speed grade of 81-83% and a Y-slow of 67%. Hosted on vpn server via site5 with over 1000+ members, and at least 50 online at one time, the site still loads at around 9-13 seconds. 

Hosted on pacifichost with 21 members and about 5 online at one time. 2-5 seconds. 

Vladimir Bach +1

You may also take a look at these posts: 

http://www.oxwall.org/forum/topic/9951

http://www.oxwall.org/forum/topic/6195

http://www.oxwall.org/forum/topic/6163

Quote from Vladimir Bach Here is what i have done with my htaccess file. This brings me up to an overall of page speed grade of 81-83% and a Y-slow of 67%. Hosted on vpn server via site5 with over 1000+ members, and at least 50 online at one time, the site still loads at around 9-13 seconds. 

Hosted on pacifichost with 21 members and about 5 online at one time. 2-5 seconds.