Dave's Note: Jim brings up some good points, and most importantly subscriber input. In other words, if you guys remain silent, you will get the SPORRS site in whatever way I like. If you contribute input to me, I will address these things which will only lead to improvements. And importantly, this loading problem is a temporary one limited to file space on my current server, which I am replacing - read on.
Jim Gilley wrote: > Regarding web page design, I'm afraid I must disagree with Dave. We are talking only about the SPORRS site with lots of our pictures on it here, not web site design in general. Otherwise, my view on it is the same as Jim's. > Having a page that takes 10 minutes to load from a dial-up connection > is just NOT an acceptable situation. Input is good. It doesn't take me very long with a 28800 modem. > My input is this: I strongly > believe the SPORRS page would be better served by using small > thumbnail gif images to index the much larger jpeg images. This is a great idea, but one I tried first on my test site and with the current amount of file space on the server (I just did the quick math) we would already be over the file space limit with the addition of more image files such as decent quality GIFs. I can swap the current thumbnails out for my (already exist on most) 7K GIFs and ad them to the server as a trial soon. Be forewarned that the quality of the thumbnails will be much worse than what we have now (to the point where you can see the color of an object, but no other information). I can add text on top of the thumbnail to tell you what each shot is (that won't be in the bigger JPG), but any of this requires time and if not already provided to me in the exact size, I will have to make a GIF file of each of your shots, many of which I have to size and JPG anyway, so this will eliminate my quick response time for getting your images up on the site so fast. Everything here is a tradeoff. And importantly right now, if additional files (GIFs) are added, we are close to the file space limit of my current server, so I cannot put any additional images on the site then until I move the SPORRS web site to a server with a larger file space (I'm already working on this anyway - when that happens, and it will be soon, we WILL use GIFs for the thumbnails - which you must also provide for a quick posting time). Remember, I am providing a free service and my time here guys. > Why? > Because it would make things faster. Don't believe me? One step ahead of you. I have an identical SPORRS site WITH GIF thumbnails (all the same 7K thumbnail with different file names for the test though) that exceeds the current server's file space. I did extensive work on the SPORRS site and design before it went to the web. If you could see the WHOLE site I have so far that I don't have room to put on the web (yet!), you would freak. :) Jim's experiment is informative and accurate, but also not applicable to this situation with the current server. Your input is heard though, and improvements are on the way. Anyone else have input? Speak up! > The other question some of you may ponder is why my jpegs are twice > as big as those on sporrs. This is because I am saving them at a > higher quality setting which preserves more of the image detail, but > uses less compression. The result is a better looking image that > takes twice as long to download. Dave's Note: The SPORRS Image Archive Page is like this too. There's no room for it on the current server, so you guys can't get to it yet, but since the topic came up, it's coming in the future! Are you guys starting to figure out why the complete version of the Image Submission Specification File is not finished yet? 1. It's very comprehensive. 2. It's ever changing. 3. There's no room on the current server for the huge file! > Of course, each person has his/her own way of doing things, and I'm > NOT looking to insult, degrade, or otherwise start a fight here. I > just think the sporrs page would work better for most people if it > loaded faster. Who amongst you agree with me? Dave's reply: I agree with you too, Jim, so I hope that I have shed some light on the current site and (free) server situation and the continually developing and growing SPORRS web site for everyone. More to come soon! > One final idea is to limit the number of shots that can be up there > at any time. Just pick a number, like 20. Then, as new shots come > in, old shots get pushed out in the same order that they came in. we will be at that point when the currently displayed rows plus one more horizontal image row are filled up. The next server will allow HUNDREDS of images WITH GIF thumbnails too. :) Tip: The higher res Archives (not the current 600x408 pixel shots which will stay also) are to be linked to files on another (public) server even at that point. I have a lot 'up my sleeve'. :) > Let's face it, once you've seen an image, there's really not much > reason to come back and look at it again. Right, old ones are going to the Archives page soon, and when I am happy with the way that page looks and I link it from the current (it will be the next one at that point) SPORRS web site, you will be able to get to those images again, but I must forewarn you even still: most of them are linked from TEXT descriptions and they (will be) in sets by the photographers who shot them, some of which must be requested for upload after a period of time. More on this later, we are getting too far ahead of ourselves here now. Does all of this take time? You bet. But I'm in no hurry with the expansion, for I am doing this mostly for the fun of it. I am working on the server and the load time issues right now though. The long and the short of SPORRS is: "You ain't seen nothing yet!" :) Regards, Dave Cohen SPORRS Founder -> Web Site: http://home.att.net/~acphotog/sporrs/sporrs.htm -> SPORRS: Serious Photographers of Railroad Related Subjects X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 Content-Length: 2105
