Still, the comment i made was targeted at half of your image that looks to me that coud "go" safey without affecting your overal design. I'm talking about the part behind the content. No offence but at this point it looks more like a wallpaper to me (in size at least).
However this is your choice and in no way am I trying to be critical on that issue, afterall, design it's a subtle thing and i may not read your message right this time. I just expressed a "not very well expained" opinion, nothing more. I hope you are not upset with me.
Mugur,
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.
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.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mugur Padurean
Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:48 PM
To: [email protected]
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] > 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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edward Clarke
Sent: Monday, 25 July 2005 3:08 AM
To: [email protected]
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
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: [email protected]
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 (
