Is it lazing loading? - how to speak to a web developer?

I need to talk to a web designer about something, but I don't know what words to use.

The page scrolls down and the images load with a sort of animation thing.  - we don't want this.  We want the whole page to load at once (and be small/efficient/fast enough to load all at once)

When I do a speed test ( https://developers.google.com/ ) on the old page, it's 2.5 seconds across all the measurements.
But the new page he designed is over 15.8 seconds (I take the fastest time)

The old page was designed very simply and cleanly.  Whereas the new page seems to be doing fancy stuff, then he applies 'go fast' stuff to compensate.  The fancy stuff isn't needed in the first place, how do we say this in computer-speak?  

Hi, ancient web developer here.

Lazy load is the thing where the images are only loaded when they - the place on the page where they should be - comes into view; ie. when the visitor scrolls deep enough on a long page.

Lazy load as a principle is a very good thing since it cuts way down on the amount of traffic required. But the way the images are loaded when the need arises is a separate question; it can be anything from very simple and quick to very elaborate.

Where can I see the page you're describing?

Thanks for the input.  I cannot share the page as it's a company thing.  

It seems to be the big problem is communicating with the web developer they hired.  If I can learn the language of the different features, then maybe we can put a list together that the web developer can understand.

The original design is fine - it would perfect if he could stick with that instead of designing a whole new look.  But switching from Drupal to Wordpress seems to negate that.

He shouldn't need these lazy loads, as the homepage webpage should only be one "page down" button for the desktop view, and no more than four swipes on the finger in verticle mobile view.  But how do you explain that?

So the current page loads, and if I press the page down button, it only moves 1/4 of the screen down to get to the end.  So to me, this is 1.25 of a page long in 'regular desktop view'.  To me 'regular desktop view' is an average of what I see when I'm in IE, Chrome, Fox and Edge (or whatever the new IE is) on a 1920x1080 monitor viewed at 100%.  Not in full screen.  

How do I say that?  

His current demo has three page downs button (3.5 of a page) in desktop and a crazy amount in mobile view.  This is why he's put the pictures in this lazy view.  But if he could keep the page under the designated length, then it wouldn't need this.  

Well...

Again, lazy load is a very good idea, especially for "heavy" pages (lots of images) and for bandwidth-limited audiences... Provided it is not implemented in such a way that it's more trouble than it's worth. It is entirely possible to implement lazy load without getting a bad score on various page tests.

But it's hard for me to comment technically on a page I can't explore in practice.

However - I don't think you need a technical vocabulary to talk to your developer.

It looks to me like you've come to a situation that happens A LOT in this area: the customer gives the developer a paid job and the developer thinks up ways of making things really sophisticated in order to have an argument for the billing. However, this achieves the opposite result when the customer considers the product too elaborate and is less happy than before the task started.

You mentioned Drupal and Wordpress - the trouble with these is that there are a gazillion of pre-packaged solutions which are general in nature and usually not really optimized for somebody's particular situation. And it's too easy to just grab some of these, plop them together and hope the client is impressed by the visuals. (That's a general comment - again, I can't talk in detail about a page I haven't seen in practice.)

Just let your developer know that you want to keep things simple - no complex loading schemes, no special effects, no eye candy (that is technically "heavy", increasing page size and loading time), no massive page length. Anybody can understand that - if they are ready to understand it.

Now comes the problem part.

Your goal is entirely legitimate and a good idea.

But from the developer's point of view what you want is something boringly simple that doesn't really put bread on the table for them. It could happen that it becomes hard to find a person that will be willing to do it, maybe a web-literate student. In my experience I've often told a customer "look, you want X, I know what this is really worth and I know what my minimum price is to dedicate time to a project - we'll both be happier if we don't to this together".