RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf

[Tatham Oddie \(Fuel Advance\)]

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:[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:[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="">).