On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Ashley Sheridan
> On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 22:11 +0100, rene7705 wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Stuart Dallas <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> As for my files and homepage being Huge, yep, it's made for the future
> > or current fast internet connections.
> > >> Frankly, size reduction is not on my agenda. I'll wait for the nets to
> > become faster still.
> > >> And the server should spit it out at 2MB/s at least..
> > >
> > > That may be so, but when my 100Mbit/s connection finally managed to
> > download the file it took about 4 minutes, which is nowhere near 2MB/s.
> > Your homepage takes 7 seconds to load - that's unacceptable in the real
> > world, especially when you're talking about a server that's (and I'm only
> > guessing here) not under heavy load.
> > >
> > > Anyway, your comment about waiting for the nets (sic) to catch up so it
> > can cope with your bloat has convinced me to not bother looking any further
> > into your project, but I wish you the best of luck with it (you're gonna
> > need it).
> > >
> > > -Stuart
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stuart Dallas
> > > 3ft9 Ltd
> > > http://3ft9.com/
> > >
> > Yup... I think rene forgot the fact is if each client requests pull
> > 1MB/s , his upload has to be at least 120MB/s for 100 simultaneous
> > clients' connections. Last time I check in ISP services, that
> > bandwidth falls within OC-12+ category....
> If ya'll would take a closer look at my site, you'd see that most of the
> size is in artwork.
> If you want a simple site, use simple artwork.
> It's _not_ my code's size that's any problem, as I mentioned earlier.
> Enough for now, I'll look at this list tomorrow again.
> Time for partying with the live mix at frequence3.fr now..
> Just adding my own two pennies to this lot.
> It does seem a little irresponsible to create such a large (in size)
> website, especially when you consider that in many countries people don't
> have high-speed or unlimited access. Even the UK has lots of areas with
> only basic Internet access via dial-up lines, and plenty of people rely on
> mobile dongles to connect, which are most often metered and slow.
> On to the technicals of what you wanted us to look at, because I think
> this thread has become slightly derailed from the original question.
The original comment was that I had licked HTML5 History API + caching.
No-one has even commented on that part.
> - The 'Home: Downloads, Blog' link at the top doesn't work for me at
> all. I'm using Fx 3.6 on Fedora 14
> True, coz that link should point to the homepage. I decided not to spread
my content out over tons of pages, or to create redundant content.
> - The drop-down menu appears odd, with some items appearing over the
> That's by design but can be changed in the source quite easily
> - The products menu at the top does nothing when clicked on
> Same as the Home:Downloads,Blog link.
> - Other 'pages' take a long time to load in
> Strange, they don't here, and it should drop to 0 once the cache is filled
> Sorry, but it really doesn't look very professional when basic things
> (like links) don't work at all. I'd hate to have any kind of disability
> because I doubt any screen readers would work, and using your site with
> only a keyboard would probably be just as impossible.
You can probably use the links in the content to get around the site.
Sorry the menu isn't accessible with keyboard, but that's something I don't
feel like making my problem right now.
I want to create content sites with these components, not get stuck in code
issue after code issue.
But hey, if you want to improve the components, and send me the result
back, I'll surely credit you where appropriate.
> That might seem like harsh feedback, but I do have quite a strong view on
Ok. As I said, the content links can be used to browse around. Not ideal,
but it will do imo.