RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf

[TN38 [Admin]]

Quote: only from lists such as this where people impose limits without thinking about how networks are evolving.   You’re assuming everyone has DSL at low contention. As you mention, networks are evolving, more so wirelessly where bandwidth is even more of a premium which is justification enough to serve lightweight pages.   Quote: I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k.   Sorry bud but 150Kb is just too heavy. Fact!   By all means create a heavy front page as you’re the developer but don’t forget the high bandwidth disclaimer in the footer of the template.   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tatham Oddie (Fuel Advance) Sent: 25 July 2005 10:16 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Site Check: Broadleaf   Mugur,   > I hope you are not upset with me.   Not at all. J   I just fail to understand people who are concerned about pages under 150k. Until about 2 years ago, 50k was my limit. However since then, I’ve been happy to add about 50k per year to that limit in line with the uptake of broadband, at least in Australia. Across numerous websites, I’ve never actually had a complaint from a user / client, only from lists such as this where people impose limits without thinking about how networks are evolving.     Thanks,   Tatham Oddie Fuel Advance - Ignite Your Idea www.fueladvance.com