[WSG] background loading issue
Hi, At the following url: http://working.ckimedia.com/index.php The delay when loading the background is giving me pause. Is this delay a huge usability issue, or has my quest become retentive? CK __ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** 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] background loading issue
Chris, You should at least add a (white, or light grey) background color to the body or div with the main content. If you do, users can start reading the content even when the background isn't loaded yet (or does nog load at all). Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, At the following url: http://working.ckimedia.com/index.php The delay when loading the background is giving me pause. Is this delay a huge usability issue, or has my quest become retentive? CK __ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- -- http://www.getfirefox.com/ ** 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] background loading issue
Chris Kennon wrote: Any suggestions on bringing the file size down? I've tried interlacing the .gif the current size is the lowest without image degradation. Just for comparison, I took the image into PaintShopPro (yes, I'm too cheap to own Photoshop right now) and saved the image in JPEG format at 10% compression. I noticed no image degradation, but the file size dropped from 289K to 125K. (PNG was not much better than GIF in file size). Dunno if you wanted to go that route, but any large images I use on my site are first saved in both formats to determine the best choice (once in a while, GIF is smaller than JPG). _ Charles Martin http://www.webcudgel.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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] background loading issue
You can drop the image to 23K with a decent JPEG converter. The fact that it's a background means just that: it's subordinate to content. I have http://www.xat.com/ in my graphics manipulation armoury. Still the best after 3 years. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com Administrator Guild of Accessible Web Designers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gawds.org CK wrote: Hi, At the following url: http://working.ckimedia.com/index.php The delay when loading the background is giving me pause. Is this delay a huge usability issue, or has my quest become retentive? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.5.4 - Release Date: 15/12/04 ** 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] background loading issue
Large images are almost always better off as jpegs. The exception being images that use lots of flat color and/or text. Photoshop's Save for web features easily got this image down to 37K with similar visible quality. But you certainly don't need Photoshop. There are many shareware/freeware programs that do this as well. One freeware program called Paint Studio Lite did even better than Photoshop; it got the image down to 20-30K at the same visual quality. You can download it here (only a 2MB download): http://www.snapfiles.com/get/paintstudio.html Hope that helps. Paul Charles Martin wrote: Chris Kennon wrote: Any suggestions on bringing the file size down? I've tried interlacing the .gif the current size is the lowest without image degradation. Just for comparison, I took the image into PaintShopPro (yes, I'm too cheap to own Photoshop right now) and saved the image in JPEG format at 10% compression. I noticed no image degradation, but the file size dropped from 289K to 125K. (PNG was not much better than GIF in file size). Dunno if you wanted to go that route, but any large images I use on my site are first saved in both formats to determine the best choice (once in a while, GIF is smaller than JPG). _ Charles Martin http://www.webcudgel.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Paul Jones SPARKLE Webmaster www.sparkle.usu.edu 1-435-797-5594 Please note the new phone number: 1-435-797-5594 ** 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] background loading issue
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:19:48 -0600, Charles Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Kennon wrote: Any suggestions on bringing the file size down? I've tried interlacing the .gif the current size is the lowest without image degradation. Just for comparison, I took the image into PaintShopPro (yes, I'm too cheap to own Photoshop right now) and thats good, because Photoshop has worst savers for JPEG and PNG I've ever seen! (even if you use Save for Web). Use JpegOptim. I've done quick'n'dirty Win32 port: http://pornel.ldreams.net/jpegoptim/jpegoptim1.2.2_win32.zip and for PNG absolute must is: pngcrush.exe -cc -reduce -rem gAMA -rem cHRM -rem iCCP -rem sRGB -d pngcrushed file.png optipng.exe -o6 pngcrushed/file.png pngcrush will remove gamma chunks from png, that may cause unpredictable results on different operating systems and optipng will squeeze few more bytes from png. Photoshop doesn't support 8bit png with alpha channel at all, but they are very very useful. PNGQuant converts 24+8 png to 8+8. Great news is that IE partially supports those - instead of making gray background it just degrades alpha channel to 1bit. all mentioned programs are open-source. link: google. -- regards, Kornel Lesiski ** 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] background loading issue
Hi, For this kind of images jpg works a lot better (keeping that kind of photographic detail). I used fireworks keeping a good quality and the file is 50kb. I can send the file if you want. bye Laura On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:19:48 -0600, Charles Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Kennon wrote: Any suggestions on bringing the file size down? I've tried interlacing the .gif the current size is the lowest without image degradation. Just for comparison, I took the image into PaintShopPro (yes, I'm too cheap to own Photoshop right now) and saved the image in JPEG format at 10% compression. I noticed no image degradation, but the file size dropped from 289K to 125K. (PNG was not much better than GIF in file size). Dunno if you wanted to go that route, but any large images I use on my site are first saved in both formats to determine the best choice (once in a while, GIF is smaller than JPG). _ Charles Martin http://www.webcudgel.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** 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] background loading issue[Problem Solved]
On Thursday, December 16, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, Any suggestions on bringing the file size down? I've tried interlacing the .gif the current size is the lowest without image degradation. CK Thanks for the compliment on the background. Any other suggestions or critique of the design is welcome off-list On Thursday, December 16, 2004, at 10:10 AM, Charles Martin wrote: I wonder too about your bandwidth limits with your hosting service. 275K every time someone hits the home page for the first time is kinda hefty. Naturally, as they surf the site, that initial download only happens once so if its within acceptable limits, go for it. BTW, love the background. CK __ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** CK __ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** 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] background loading issue
Nick Verstappen wrote: You should at least add a (white, or light grey) background color to the body or div with the main content. If you do, users can start reading the content even when the background isn't loaded yet (or does nog load at all). Excellent suggestion... I did notice that the text was completely unreadable until the background appeared. I wonder too about your bandwidth limits with your hosting service. 275K every time someone hits the home page for the first time is kinda hefty. Naturally, as they surf the site, that initial download only happens once so if its within acceptable limits, go for it. BTW, love the background. ** 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] background loading issue
Hi, Any suggestions on bringing the file size down? I've tried interlacing the .gif the current size is the lowest without image degradation. CK Thanks for the compliment on the background. Any other suggestions or critique of the design is welcome off-list On Thursday, December 16, 2004, at 10:10 AM, Charles Martin wrote: I wonder too about your bandwidth limits with your hosting service. 275K every time someone hits the home page for the first time is kinda hefty. Naturally, as they surf the site, that initial download only happens once so if its within acceptable limits, go for it. BTW, love the background. CK __ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
