Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf

Donna Jones Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:36:40 -0700

This article only discusses reducing the HTML size. which if you take a look
at the site is already rather anorexic. Loading an image once, caching it
for potentially weeks, and not loading anything other than small HTML pages
as they browse the rest of the site seems like the smartest way it's going
to happen.

I'm not sure i understand what all the feedback regarding the backgroundimage is about either. it seems to me that the size of the html is whatmatters, its not like the page is dependant on the background. i'm halfa planet away, n. U.S., the html loads real well, then the backgroundcomes in in about half a minute (i'm on dial-up, too). I downloaded thebackground image to see if I could optomize it to "smaller" but it seemslike its already as small as it will go. I surely can't tell anydifference between the way this site loads and many of them incssgardens - in fact, i just found an official one, and its backgroundis 185K. found another, 100K. another 136K. most much smaller butstill ....

Of more concern, as far as I can tell, is "abandoning" smallerdimensions (800 wide) and no scroll bars, but maybe you've addressedthat and just not loaded yet.


regards
Donna

Basically, unless there's some fancy new way to encode the image, I don't
see any point is destroying an otherwise good design that our VCD team has
generated for the sake of saving a few seconds once-off.

Yes - I think 120kb is big (not huge though). If there is a way to make it
smaller, feel free to suggest and I'll implement. Otherwise, the speed of an
extreme minority of our user base shouldn't restrict how we work.

Also, I'm not 'assuming' as you suggest - we have bandwidth stats from the
current broadleaf.com.au site to suggest that narrowband isn't a significant
concern.

Thanks,

Tatham Oddie

Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea

www.fueladvance.com

_____

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean
Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf

Sorry, but quoting Microsoft page as good design example is not a good
ideea. No web page that big IS a good ideea.
Maybe this will help you:

http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/

The purpose of the article it's slightly different but it's a very good
motivator for small size web pages.
Also asuming that your clients will not care or will not be affected by a
web page size does not sound to me like a good business atitute.

I have no intention to annoy you or to start a rant. It's just just that i'm
on ADSL connection ... half the planet away. And big pages load slowly,
almost as dial-up (or so it feels).

On 7/25/05, Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:

Edward,

Thanks for your input, however we didn't really consider this a big issue
as:

*       most of the target market will be on office internet connections and
ADSL is basically a minimum for such people in Australia

*       the image is only downloaded once, and will be reused in the content
pages, just with different column layouts

*       because the image is only downloaded once, only the first page hit
will be slow - and first page hit occurs because users are after something
on your site - they are prepared to wait a bit longer to get it; keeping
tight page sizes is more critical when moving around a site in which case
we're only about 4k total

*       because the image is loaded through CSS, all of the content will be
positioned and usable anyway before the background clogs the connection -
just that a few seconds later the thing will start to look good as well

*       many larger sites are starting to acknowledge all of these points as
well:

*       microsoft.com home page is pushing 140k
*       sxc.hu home page is pushing 107k
*       yahoo.com.au home page is pushing 167k
*       ninemsn.com home page is pushing 136k
*       news.com.au home page is pushing 383k

Thanks,

Tatham Oddie

Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea

www.fueladvance.com_____

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  [EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Edward Clarke
Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:08 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf

I suspect the 120Kb footprint of the background image is of more concern to
most visitors.

----

Edward Clarke

ECommerce and Software Consultant

TN38 Consulting

http://blog.tn38.net

Creative Media Centre

17-19 Robertson Street

Hastings

East Sussex

TN34 1HL

United Kingdom

_____

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  [EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matthew Vanderhorst
Sent: 24 July 2005 17:52
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf

The design is very nice but the background image of the tree repeats.  It is
not noticeable until the resolution goes beyond 1024x768.  There were some
css validation errors as well (

<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&uri=http%3A//testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel>http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2

<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&uri=htt
p%3A//testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel>
&warning=2&uri=http%3A//testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel)
.




------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 7/22/2005

******************************************************
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************

Re: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf

Reply via email to