Home / Portfolio speed
Architecture and interior sites are the slowest category we measure, and the cause is the same one every time.
A typical interior design or architecture portfolio weighs between 8 and 25 MB, almost all of it photographs, and takes six to twelve seconds to become usable on a phone over 4G. The images are the product, so nobody wants to touch them, and the result is a website that hides the work it exists to show. The fix does not involve making the photographs worse, which is the assumption that keeps most designers from doing it.
A render exported from your visualiser is commonly 4000 pixels wide and somewhere between four and eight megabytes. On a laptop it looks superb. What happens on a phone is that the browser downloads the entire file at full size and then scales it down to fit a screen roughly 400 pixels across. The visitor has paid for twenty times the data they needed, and they paid for it before anything appeared.
Put ten of those on a homepage gallery and you have shipped 50 MB to somebody standing on a platform at Ghatkopar. Add an autoplaying hero video and a fade-in library and the page has not finished loading before they have given up and gone back to the search results.
This is why the category performs so badly. It is not carelessness. It is that the people building these sites are visual professionals who correctly refuse to degrade the work, and nobody has told them that resolution and file size are separable problems.
Three changes, in order of return:
Done together, a 22 MB portfolio usually lands somewhere near 2 MB. We have not found a client yet who could tell the difference in the photographs, and that includes the ones who shoot their own.
Test this honestly before you decide it does not apply to you. Open your site in a private window on mobile data, not office wifi, and watch how long until you can actually see a project. Your usual visit is served from your own cache and tells you nothing.
Speed matters here for a reason it does not matter for a plumber. A client hiring you for a home interior is making a decision about whether you are organised, whether deadlines mean anything to you, and whether the next nine months will be a pleasure or a running argument. They cannot assess any of that from photographs, so they assess it from proxies, and your website is the only process artefact they have seen.
A site that stutters, or where the gallery jumps as images pop in, is read as evidence about how you run a project. That inference is not fair, and it is also not going away.
Once the page loads, most portfolios are galleries without an argument. Twenty projects, each captioned with the project type and the locality, and nothing about the thinking. A visitor looking at a beautiful living room has no way to work out whether you could design theirs, because the only question they actually have is whether you have solved a problem like theirs before.
Five projects written up properly beat twenty presented as a slideshow. What a written-up project needs is what the client wanted, what was difficult about the site, what you decided and why, what it cost in the sense of a band rather than a figure, and how long it took. The photographs then illustrate an argument instead of standing in for one.
This has a search consequence too. A page of images with no text gives Google and any AI assistant nothing to read, which is why so many design studios are invisible for exactly the searches their ideal client makes. If your services live inside a picture, they do not exist as far as a machine is concerned.
Almost every studio site in this region says some version of creating beautiful, functional spaces tailored to the client. Read six in a row and they blur. Narrowing costs you nothing you were going to win anyway: a studio that says it designs contemporary residences for young families in Navi Mumbai will lose enquiries it was never going to convert and win the ones it should.
Resize and convert your images this week; it is an afternoon and it is most of the gain. Then pick your five strongest projects and write them up properly. Leave the redesign until after both, because a faster, better-argued version of your current site usually settles the question of whether you needed a new one. Our free audit will give you the actual load figure and page weight if you would rather start from a number than a guess.
A real audit of a real business site — what was wrong, what it was costing, and exactly what we would change. No pitch, no roundups, one email a week.
Businesses are anonymised. Unsubscribe in one click. We never pass your address to anyone.
Send the URL. In 60 minutes you get page weight, mobile load time and the three heaviest files on the site, in writing.
Aim for the main image to appear within 2.5 seconds on a mid-range phone over mobile data. Design sites are image-heavy so this takes deliberate work, but 2.5 seconds is achievable with a full-bleed photographic homepage.
Not at the sizes a screen actually uses. Most portfolios are shipping images four to six times larger than any display will show. Resizing to 1600px and converting to WebP is invisible to the eye and cuts the file by roughly 85%.
No. Five projects written up with the brief, the constraint and the decisions will convert better than twenty presented as a gallery, and they give search engines something to read.
Usually because there is almost no text on it. If your services, materials and project types live inside images, neither Google nor an AI assistant can read them, so you are invisible for the searches your ideal client is making.
It is good for discovery and bad for evaluation. Clients who find you there still search your name before enquiring, and what they find at that point decides it. Instagram also gives you no control over reach, which your own site does.