Survey: Internet Connection

"Jeff P." wrote in message
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
> go back. How about all of you?

Theoretically, at least, you should design for the lowest common
denominator. That means shoot for comfortable downloading of a web page,
with graphics, at 56K. That generally means holding graphics to a minimum
cumulative per page and offering "thumbnails" linked to the larger size
graphics ... and that's OK, words can still convey information, despite what
the X generation producers do on TV and the big commercial websites.

Used to be a picture was worth a thousand words, but these days a picture
that moves, morphs, dances, spins and makes noise is probably worth a damn
sight less.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On 30 Jan 2005 18:15:00 -0800, "Olebiker" <[email protected]> wrote:

>All the telephone company is required to provide is voice-quality
>communications. There is no requirement for any minimum data transfer
>rate. I work for a state utility commission and hear folks complain
>bout this quite a bit. You can call all you want; we don't have the
>authority to require more. The only thing that is going to make the
>telephone companies provide better internet service is for competition
>to force it to do so.
>
>Dick Durbin

Thanks for the comments. As you know, it is state-by-state. Maybe you've
seen a NARUC survey or just know that most/all states still only require
voice quality. I have not been in that "business" for a few years and was
extrapolating as to what I thought may have happened since then with the
regulators, w/ or w/o a state legislative push. Gore tax and all those
charges to support universal service. I figured by now that some state
governments, in order to support "economic development", etc. would have
required basic data quality at some level. Seems my thinking was too
wishful. Anyway, that is why I suggested going up the chain if the PUC/PSC
didn't/couldn't help. Could a state impose a data standard - directly OR
indirectly - that would effectively require 54K (versus 56K) connections?
Or, would that be considered something off-limits to state regulators under
the 1996 act or some FCC rule? Not a biggie; just wonderin' -- Igor

In article <[email protected]>,
Jeff P. <[email protected]> wrote:
>Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that the
>14.4 modem was "smokin".


Bah! You're a newbie. <grin>

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
bastards suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,

In article <[email protected]>,
Jeff P. <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dreamweaver gives an estimated load time for your pages but I test them
>anyway with my auxilary dial up line that Roadrunner provides. I've found
>the times in Dreamweaver quite accurate. My goal is to keep all load times
>in the 15 to 25 second range for a 56k connection.
>


A few pieces of advice:

1) Make sure any 'home'-type page(s) load _fast_. i.e., about 25Kbyte
*max*. 'Instant gratification' _is_ important for retaining the first-
time visitor.
2) Anything 'big' (i.e., over 25-50k) put a parenthetical after the link
that gives the approx. 'size' (in kbytes) of the page data. This is
called 'managing expectations' -- when people _know_ 'in advance' how
long they'll have to wait they tend to be much more tolerant of delays.
*AND*, those who know that they don't have the patience won't even _try_
the page.
3) consider putting up 'parallel' pages for low-speed, and high-speed,
access. If you're careful to make all the links on the page 'relative',
you can accomplish this by changing _only_ the 'base' tag at the top
of the page.
4) You can get amazing savings by reducing the number of 'colors' used in
an image. and JPGs are not always smaller than GIFs -- especially where
"thumbnails" are concerned. A *sixteen* color GIF may be entirely
adequate for a 'preview' shot.
5) consider using "frames". to allow _selective_re-drawing_ of *partial*
page content.



One other consideration is the _outbound_ bandwidth from your web-server.
If you're running it at the end of a DSL/cable connection, the 'upload'
speed limits of that connection can become a real problem. Especially if
multiple people hit the site at 'more-or-less' the same time.

i.e., if you've got a link with a 384K 'upload' speed, then *six* simultaneous
requests for a circa 150kbyte ("20 seconds at 56k") page will result in
at least 20-second 'load' times for _all_ the viewers. EVEN those with _multi-
megabit_ 'download' capabilities.

In article <[email protected]>,
igor <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 30 Jan 2005 18:15:00 -0800, "Olebiker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>All the telephone company is required to provide is voice-quality
>>communications. There is no requirement for any minimum data transfer
>>rate. I work for a state utility commission and hear folks complain
>>bout this quite a bit. You can call all you want; we don't have the
>>authority to require more. The only thing that is going to make the
>>telephone companies provide better internet service is for competition
>>to force it to do so.
>>
>>Dick Durbin
>
>Thanks for the comments. As you know, it is state-by-state. Maybe you've
>seen a NARUC survey or just know that most/all states still only require
>voice quality. I have not been in that "business" for a few years and was
>extrapolating as to what I thought may have happened since then with the
>regulators, w/ or w/o a state legislative push. Gore tax and all those
>charges to support universal service. I figured by now that some state
>governments, in order to support "economic development", etc. would have
>required basic data quality at some level. Seems my thinking was too
>wishful. Anyway, that is why I suggested going up the chain if the PUC/PSC
>didn't/couldn't help. Could a state impose a data standard - directly OR
>indirectly - that would effectively require 54K (versus 56K) connections?
>Or, would that be considered something off-limits to state regulators under
>the 1996 act or some FCC rule? Not a biggie; just wonderin' -- Igor
>

If FAX, at 14,400 (possibly even only 9600) will connect, *NO* public-utility
commission in the U.S. will take your complaint. Some won't take a
complaint if you can get a 1200 baud data connection.

Over POTS (analog) phone lines, _ALL_ speeds above 14,400 require end-to-end
circuit connections that are 'higher quality' (higher bandwidth, less distort-
ion, lower noise) than voice circuit specifications require. Even 14.4k is
running 'right at the limits' of the specifications.

Some limits are _inherent_physical_characteristics_ of the length of wire
between the customer premises and the telephone company switching equipment.
Needless to say, you _cannot_ legislate around the laws of physics. <grin>

(BTW, this is also the reason that you *cannot* get DSL 'out in the country'.)

Other -legal-restrictions- arise from the need not to interfere with 'adjacent'
phone circuits. This is why you -cannot_ get a true '56k' connection (only
54k max.) *anywhere* in the U.S., today. the actual 56k rate signalling puts
"too much" energy on the wire pair; over the limit established to prevent
interference (e.g. 'cross-talk') with adjacent circuits in the multi-pair
cable.


THEN you get into the situation, on "longer" phone lines, where there are
things that are needed to make voice work 'well', which are detrimental to
high-speed data. If the phone line is _tariffed_ as a "voice circuit",
guess which kind of things are *required* to be done to that line?

Alternatively, you can pay the -higher- tariff for a dedicated "data circuit",
and the telco _will_ 'remove" those 'things' from that wire-pair. One of the
things that you, the 'data circuit' customer _pay_extra_ for, however, is the
cost for a technician to _physically_ go out to the various points on the line
where those 'things' are installed, and disconnect them, *AND* the cost of his
time for the 'return trip' _after_ you're through with the circuit, to
*RE-CONNECT* them -- so the line can be used for "normal" voice service again.


Any change in the 'technical requirements' for phone service would simply
_have_ to "grandfather" in any _pre-existing_ 'physical plant'. If it
wasn't, considering that the ILEC _is_ a 'regulated' service, with rates
set by the government -- at a level that *guarantees* that the company
can/will make a 'reasonable' profit -- then the ILEC would immediately
file for a tariff increase to 'pay for' those required upgrades. Base
phone rates would probably climb somewhere between 500% and 5000% percent.

Oddly enough, _voice_ customer's aren't willing to pay *that* kind of money
for an 'upgrade' that *they* don't need. <wry grin>

In article <[email protected]>,
Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>A good web designer will allow you to skip heavy graphic AVIs and test
>the site using Netscape, Opera, and Mozilla.

That is what a *mediocre* web designer will do. Admittedly, that *is* a step
above what a "M$ brainwashed" one does.

A _good_ designer *knows* that there are _standards_ -- which describe a base
set of capabilities that =all= web-browsers support; writes _to_ those
standards, *and* employs a 'validator' to TEST FOR COMPLIANCE with those
aforementioned standards.

A good designer also checks site functionality using a browser like "LYNX",
which runs on text-only dumb terminals, doesn't attempt graphics in any form,
and doesn't do Java, Javascript, Flash, or any of the rest of that cr*p.

A good designer may _use_ those 'flash & sizzle' whiz-bang gadgets, but he
will also ensure that the site is 100% functional _without_ any of them.

*GOOD* web designers are _very_ scarce!

Make that very, Very, *V*E*R*Y* scarce.

Unfortunately.

> Even better yet, the
>designer can detect the connection speed, browser, and O/S

FALSE! Utterly, and totally.

1) Connection speed is _not_ available. Even if it were, it wouldn't
mean diddly-squat -- except in the case of a dial-up connection.
The 'limiting' factor in Internet transmissions is the 'smallest pipe'
_anywhere_ between source and destination. Even for home users -- and
especially those with a broadband connection -- the connection out of
the "PC" is at _Ethernet_ (or 'fast Ethernet) speeds, i.e. 10mbit/sec
(or 100mbit/sec). *BUT* this poor victim is connected via an ISDL
circuit, configured for PPPOE, and he's got a maximum _effective_
throughput of only about 115kbit/sec. *GUESS*WHAT*HAPPENS* if the
server-side "assumes" he's on a fat pipe, and throws the 'graphics
intensive' version at him.

*EXCEPT* in the case of a direct dial-up connection, the connection
speed out of the desktop machine is _rarely_ (*VERY* rarely) the
'limiting factor' on data transfer rates.

2) 'browser' and 'O/S' are:
(a) _optional_ data, not necessarily supplied
(b) *when* supplied, the data are 'whatever the requestor _chooses_
to report', which may, or may *not* have any relationship to
reality.
(c) *MEANINGLESS*, if the page "designer" is not aware of the
'oddities' of _that_ particular browser implementation. Or has
not taken the time/effort to code up handling for that _specific_
set of weirdness. There are more browsers, *and* operating
systems, out there than anyone can be reasonably expected to:
[i] keep track of, [ii] keep current on the vagaries of, or
[iii] program for. So *what* do you do, when the 'claimed'
browser does _not_ match one you 'know about'? Tell the user to
'go away', and come back only if he has a 'compatible' browser?
Put up a 'standard' page that works with _any_ browser? (H*ll, if
you have _that_, why bother with the 'browser specific' variants?)


Again, this is the "M$-brainwashed" approach to the issue. Write it the first
time, using the vendor-specific (aka 'proprietary') extensions. Then, to
make it work for 'most' of the "rest of the world", try to figure out if
it is the MS browser, or 'something else', and for each _recognized_ "something
else", code up "yet another" set of vendor-specific (aka 'proprietary') garbage
that works only for _that_ browser. And if you _don't_ recognize what the
potential customer is using for a web browser, tell them to 'go away' -- after
all, you don't need that 'fringe' business.

Alternatively, you write _to_the_standards_, *verify* standards compliance,
double-check with several commonly available browsers (because they _are_ known
to ignore the standards in some cases), and have something that *everybody*
can use.

The best available here is 26.4K

--
Ross
www.myoldtools.com
"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
> never
> go back. How about all of you?
>
> --
> Jeff P.
>
> "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
> can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
> you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno
>
>
> Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>bonomi.com says...
>> Bah! You're a newbie. <grin>
>>
>> I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.
>>
>> The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
>> bastards suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,
>>
>
>And the BBS's only downloaded new messages once a day. so your effective
>turnaround was 24 hours :-).
>
>Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:
>
>1. Write program on coding sheets.
>2. Give to keypuncher.
>3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
>4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
>interpreter).
>5. Hand deck to computer operator.
>6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
>7. Check results.
>8. Find bug - start over.

Heck, I went to a _modern_ university -- they let the students use the
keypunch machines themselves.

Then there was the day I went into the prep room, and saw a friend of
mine sitting at one of the work-tables, staring disconsolately at a print-out,
with a _moderately small_ deck (maybe 80-100) of cards beside him.

I went up, looked over his shoulder, and said "OH! the problem is obvious."

He looks up, and says (hopefully) "what is it?"

I said: "FORTRAN programs have to be on the cards with the purple stripe."

He, *knowing* I was pulling his leg, replied, absolutely deadpan: "Oh, so
_that's_ it. They told us that in class, I should have remembered."

At about this point, some kid sitting on the other side of the table, with
a *BIG* deck (like almost an entire 'box') of _plain_ cards, comes out of his
seat like a marionette on wires, eyes bugged out of his head, and in a rising
wail of absolutely *petrified* anguish/despair exclaims:

"FORTRAN has to be on the *PURPLE* cards????!!!!!!!"

Neither my friend or I could keep a straight face, and broke out laughing.
A few moments later one of us manages to explain that we were just joking,
and the guy collapses back into his chair.

I don't think I've ever seen anybody else so close to having to go change
underwear, just as a result of something that was _said_.


>I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
>know what those were :-).

Should I mention plug-board programming an IBM 046 ??

Or analyzing timing for various algorithms for dividing a large collating
job among multiple 049 sorters?

In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
>
>> Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:
>>
>> 1. Write program on coding sheets.
>> 2. Give to keypuncher.
>> 3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
>> 4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
>> interpreter).
>> 5. Hand deck to computer operator.
>> 6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
>> 7. Check results.
>> 8. Find bug - start over.
>>
>> I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
>> know what those were :-).
>
>You forgot 5a. Drop deck and spill cards on floor ... start over.

That is followed by 5b -- insert sequence number in 'comments' field on
*every*line* on the coding form.

(Then you can just pick up the 'scrambled' deck, make a few passes through
the 'sorter', and have everything back in the right order.)

It only takes one or two experiences with 'un-numbered' decks for the
'wisdom' to sink in. <voice of "too much" experience speaking>

In article <[email protected]>,
Noons <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Blanchard apparently said,on my timestamp of 1/02/2005 5:50 AM:
>
>>>I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.
>>>
>>>The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
>>>bastards suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,
>
>Hehehe! Carrier pigeons anyone?

Are you referring to RFC1149-compliant, or RFC 2549-compliant, pigeons?

In article <[email protected]>,
Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> (Then you can just pick up the 'scrambled' deck, make a few passes through
>> the 'sorter', and have everything back in the right order.)
>
>On the unit we had about 50% of the time it was a sorter. The other 50% it
>was a shredder.

Well, there was the day I put a several-hundred card deck into the card reader
on the RJE station, hit the 'load' button, watched the cards go _into_ the
machine, and *NOTHING* come out.

Now, the path through the machine, from the input hopper, to the output
stacker was only about _four_ cards long.

The "impossible" had just happened.


I go report the matter to the computer operations staff, in the next room,
and the supervisor comes over (disbelivingly, I might add) to check out
the situation. (they knew me, *knew* I didn't 'make things up', but *this*
story _did_ stretch their credulity.)

He goes around to the back of the machine, opens it up, and breaks up,
laughing.The *entire* innards of the machine (*several* cubic feet) is
absolutely filled with crumpled up punch-cards. _MY_ job deck.

Apparently, the last 'pressure plate' covering the card path, had come up,
and as the cards 'shot' down the reader channel, they just flew up, past the
end of the channel, rather than being stopped at the end and pulled sideways
into the output hopper.

"Cards, Cards, *everywhere*, and not a byte to save."

I could (and *DID*) laugh about it at the time, because: (a) this happened
_after_ the cards went past the 'read' station in the machine, (b) the job
I was submitting was one that copied the data from the input cards to a
'permanent' disk file on the mainframe, and, most importantly, (c) that job
had run _successfully_.

In article <[email protected]>,
Norman D. Crow <[email protected]> wrote:
>Currently dialup 56K, switching to DSL this week. Tried RR a year or so
>back, loved it, but couldn't afford it. Right now I've got DSL through my
>local ISP for $29.90/mo. for 1 yr. with option to renew for 2nd yr. @ same
>price.
>
>9600 memories; mid 80's, data entry system running entry terminals @ 9600 on
>a big MX'er, they were complaining of losing data. Watched the girls, they
>were faster than the connection, over-running the buffers. They just had to
>slow down a tiny bit.

9600 baud is almost _ten_thousand_ words per minute.

Postulating that the mux _uplink_ was at 9600, and supporting 32 terminals,
They _each_ would have had to be typing at close to 300 words/minute to over-
load the link. color me *very* skeptical. :)

Now, if it was a 64-terminal mux, on a 9.6k uplink, that's getting closer to
'believable'.

In article <[email protected]>,
Jeff P. <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dreamweaver gives an estimated load time for your pages but I test them
>anyway with my auxilary dial up line that Roadrunner provides. I've found
>the times in Dreamweaver quite accurate. My goal is to keep all load times
>in the 15 to 25 second range for a 56k connection.
>


A few pieces of advice:

1) Make sure any 'home'-type page(s) load _fast_. i.e., about 25Kbyte
*max*. 'Instant gratification' _is_ important for retaining the first-
time vistor.
2) Anything 'big' (i.e., over 25-50k) put a parenthetical after the link
that gives the approx. 'size' (in kbytes) of the page data. This is
called 'managing expectations' -- when people _know_ 'in advance' how
long they'll have to wait they tend to be much more tolerant of delays.
*AND*, those who know that they don't have the patience won't even _try_
the page.
3) consider putting up 'parallel' pages for low-speed, and high-speed,
access. If you're careful to make all the links on the page 'relative',
you can accomplish this by changing _only_ the 'base' tag at the top
of the page.
4) You can get amazing savings by reducing the number of 'colors' used in
an image. and JPGs are not always smaller than GIFs -- especially where
"thumbnails" are concerned. A *sixteen* color GIF may be entirely
adequate for a 'preview' shot.
5) consider using "frames". to allow _selective_re-drawing_ of *partial*
page content.



One other consideration is the _outbound_ bandwidth from your weh-server.
If you're running it at the end of a DSL/cable connection, the 'upload'
speed limits of that connection can become a real problem. Especially if
multiple people hit the site at 'more-or-less' the same time.

If you've got a link with a 384K 'upload' speed, then *six* simultaneous
requests for a circa 150kbyte ("20 seconds at 56k") page will result in
20-second 'load' times for _all_ the viewers. EVEN those with _multi-megabit_
'download' capabilities.

All the telephone company is required to provide is voice-quality
communications. There is no requirement for any minimum data transfer
rate. I work for a state utility commission and hear folks complain
bout this quite a bit. You can call all you want; we don't have the
authority to require more. The only thing that is going to make the
telephone companies provide better internet service is for competition
to force it to do so.

Dick Durbin

Jeff P. wrote:
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and
I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that
some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of
you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but
I'll never
> go back. How about all of you?

Jeff, I looked at your website, and thought I'd give you some pointers
as someone who has done design for nearly 10 years now.

On your home page, you're using the browser to resize your "pens"
picture. The quality on that particular graphic stinks, and you're
using up bandwidth because the entire pic has to d/l anyway. You
should resize it in your graphics software. In PS, I got that file
to be 9K in size (from 15k). The pic of the kid I got to 17K (from
23k).

IMO, I'd lose all the drop shadows. I find them annoying, and you're
going against convention and placing the light source in the upper
right instead of the upper left. It's somewhat disconcerting, and it
would save you time and bandwidth if you dropped them. Just use a
nice 1 px border with style sheets.

That's about it. Mostly in picture size. Your banners under Links I
got to under 8K each, that's half size.

If your hosting provider provides for some scripting, I would get rid
of your email address and make a form that people fill out. This will
eliminate any spam bots from gathering your email address.

Phisherman wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and
I'm
> >always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that
some
> >people might get frustrated with download times if they have a
slower
> >connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most
of you
> >have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but
I'll never
> >go back. How about all of you?
>
>
> I'm on dialup. Broadband cable is too expensive here ($84/mo) and DSL
> won't sync up (I guess too far from the Central Office), so I'm
> sticking to the $12.95 a month. I suggest making thumbnails. Use
> pictures no more than 150 dpi. Yes, I become impatient if I have to
> wait more than a minute for a page to load.

DPI is meaningless when it comes to on display graphics. DPI is ONLY
used when printing images. Pixel quantity is the only measurement
that means anything on screen.

Sorry this is so off topic for a WW NG. Just helping a fellow
Woodworker...

> I appreciate the comments Larry. I missed the fact that that pic was
> resized. Not intentional. I resized it just to see what size I
wanted it
> and then forgot to go back into PS and do it for real. It's too big
now
> even when resized in browser. I'm still in the process of optimizing
all
> the graphics and the links page was one that I've yet to tackle.

You don't mention the version of PS, but you should be doing a "Save
for Web" to save these as JPGs, then change the "quality" slider down,
IMO around 50-60 on most pics works great.

> > If your hosting provider provides for some scripting, I would get
rid
> > of your email address and make a form that people fill out. This
will
> > eliminate any spam bots from gathering your email address.
> >
>
> That's an awesome idea. I haven't had any problem as of yet with
spam on
> that add but time will tell it's been up for over a year now). Might
be
> that a form would make it easier for people to leave feedback or drop
a
> line.

It's actually a little more of a pain for the user since if they want a
response they have to type in their email address, but I think it's
worth it. I get ZERO spam.

> One question. I added a layer centering behavior because I just
think it
> looks better centered but what do you think? Just did it this
morning so if
> you didn't visit today (Monday) check back.

I personally like things left justified and if you notice nearly every
commerical website everything is LJ, but since this isn't a business I
allow for a little more creativity... I just looked at your source and
if you're concerned about bandwidth, you did the centering the hard
way!

Just place all your content in a 1 celled table that is centered. Also
not sure why you're preloading a bunch of images, or if that code is
just left over from something else.

What are you using to do your development?

Here's some great tips:

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com

There's an "old" saying in web design: What Would Amazon Do? They
are IT as far as selling products online. Here's a few things Amazon
does without you probably noticing it:

-FEW images for navigation, and those that are there are quite small.
All of the tabs at the top are less than 2k.
-The links under the tabs are text only.
-Take a look at the physical size of all the pics on the page. The
largest one I see on the home page right now is 90x90 pixels.
-Their content is not fixed width. As you change the width of your
browser, the width of the page expands to fill. This is done with
tables, not Divs or Layers.
-Style sheets, style sheets, style sheets. If you're not familiar with
them, they allow you to define a "style" which is a set of attributes
that you apply to different components of your page. For example, the
main text in your site could have a style, and if you ever want to
change the font size, for example, you only have to change it in 1
place, and it can apply to the entire site.

> A _good_ designer *knows* that there are _standards_ -- which
describe a base
> set of capabilities that =all= web-browsers support; writes _to_
those
> standards, *and* employs a 'validator' to TEST FOR COMPLIANCE with
those
> aforementioned standards.
>
> A good designer also checks site functionality using a browser like
"LYNX",
> which runs on text-only dumb terminals, doesn't attempt graphics in
any form,
> and doesn't do Java, Javascript, Flash, or any of the rest of that
cr*p.

Obviously a company has to decide what the ROI is on developing for
every possible combo. I think it would be pretty ridiculous to test
for a non graphics based platform when the OPs website is mainly
pictures of his projects. I agree with Flash and Java issue, but not
on JS.

> *GOOD* web designers are _very_ scarce!
> Make that very, Very, *V*E*R*Y* scarce.
> Unfortunately.

We know how to do it, we just don't have the time to do it. I think if
the OP hits 98% of the viewers out there, he'll be doing just fine.
Here's some browser usage stats:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Nova wrote:
>I work for AT&...
> SB... one of the major phone companies.

Me too.

How you lookin' for post merger?

I'll probably be doing something else. <G>

Barry

Jeff P. asks:

>
>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>go back. How about all of you?

DIal up. I've had cable and miss it. I can miss it until my hair falls out and
it makes NO difference. It isn't available this far from town.

Charlie Self
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
2000

Dial up here. Specifically, peoplepc.
56K modem. Currently connected at 45.2Kbps (sometimes up to 48).
I had cable before too. Miss it too. Cannot afford it since retiring.
Joe





Jeff P. wrote:
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
> go back. How about all of you?
>

DSL by PacBell/Yahoo.
"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
> never
> go back. How about all of you?
>
> --
> Jeff P.
>
> "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
> can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
> you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno
>
>
> Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com
>
>
>

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>go back. How about all of you?

Thanks for asking!

While I have a second line just for the computer, it's POTS and I'm
out in the country. I have two computers with 56K modems, desktop and
laptop. Desktop now has external hardware modem. Connects at 28.8K.
Same for the laptop.

To damn many website designers figure that everyone has a personal T1
line and design their site accordingly. They also assume that
everyone uses IE too. (I also have friends who like to forward
"funny" email with 2-megabyte file attachments. Mailwasher takes care
of those for me.)

For example, I wanted to shop Ford trucks. Ford's website wants me to
have Flash installed. (After hearing about the recent recall of Ford
trucks, I think that they installed "flash" under the hoods of their
trucks too.)

I emailed Ford and informed them that the percentage of the population
that is still on dialup was a lot higher than the percentage of the
population who drive Fords and if they wanted to improve that, they
had best fire their web designers and start over. I got an email
back, thanking me for my *email* and asking me to take a customer
survey about my experience. I said, what the hell and opened the
survey. The questions all related to my *telephone* call to customer
service. I'm sticking with my '98 Chevy.

Another example: I have an IRA at Schwab. They are constantly
bugging me to turn off paper statements and get them via the web. But
if I want a transaction history, I have to wait for an HTML table to
be generated. Then I can't get the underlying data so I have to print
it and this requires another wait while that is formatted. And I
still have a piece of paper, only it cost me to print it. I don't
have any money on deposit at Yahoo finance, but they give lots of info
in downloadable spreadsheet format for free. I use Firefox for a
browser. Some "features" at Schwab don't work correctly. When I call
their tech support they say, "Oh, you need to use IE." The customer
is always wrong.

From my perspective, give me your thoughts in text. If you need
pictures or graphics to make your case, put 'em in thumbnail form and
I'll look at them if necessary. My wife keeps my cookie jar full, I
don't need any from you, thanks anyway. I like to install my own
software as needed and I make my own coffee. Keep your Java to
yourself. Photographs need to be framed sometimes, but I don't need
them on my CRT. If you have numbers for me, give 'em to me in a
downloadable .csv file. If your document requires precise formatting,
better do it in .pdf that will survive different browser
idiosyncrasies.

Just my humble opinion.

Dave in Fairfax wrote:

> Dial up. I considered DSL, but they have issues with too many
> devices on one line. Cable was considered, but I'd have to set up
> a router (and you know I prefer Neandering) and wire all the
> computers. Expensive and pricey along with the security hassles.

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard. I'd say the truth is "I just
don't really care." :)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Theoretically, at least, you should design for the lowest common
> denominator. That means shoot for comfortable downloading of a web page,
> with graphics, at 56K. That generally means holding graphics to a minimum
> cumulative per page and offering "thumbnails" linked to the larger size
> graphics ... and that's OK, words can still convey information, despite what
> the X generation producers do on TV and the big commercial websites.
>
Agreed. And make sure it works with most browsers and OS's, not just M$
and Windoze.

Oh yes, I'm on 56K and will be till the price of DSL or cable can get
close to my current $9.95 a month.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Jeff P. wrote:

> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
> never
> go back. How about all of you?

Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey, but I'll never go back.

I hope.

It's hard to beat going from taking 30 hours to 20 minutes to download
something big.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
bonomi.com says...
> Bah! You're a newbie. <grin>
>
> I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.
>
> The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
> bastards suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,
>

And the BBS's only downloaded new messages once a day. so your effective
turnaround was 24 hours :-).

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

1. Write program on coding sheets.
2. Give to keypuncher.
3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
interpreter).
5. Hand deck to computer operator.
6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
7. Check results.
8. Find bug - start over.

I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Phisherman wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:26:22 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:
>>>
>>>1. Write program on coding sheets.
>>>2. Give to keypuncher.
>>>3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
>>>4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
>>>interpreter).
>>>5. Hand deck to computer operator.
>>>6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
>>>7. Check results.
>>>8. Find bug - start over.
>>>
>>>I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
>>>know what those were :-).
>>
>>You forgot 5a. Drop deck and spill cards on floor ... start over.
>
>
>
> That's what columns 72-80 are for, sequencing. Or, you can draw a
> diagonal over the edge of the deck using one of several colors of
> highlighters. We didn't have the luxury of keypunch operators, but
> used the 029s until TSO came along.

No one, well almost no one, uses 72-80 until they do 5A. when you
punched your own every 'saved' stroke helped.
Joe

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> No one, well almost no one, uses 72-80 until they do 5A. when you
> punched your own every 'saved' stroke helped.

No, no. Column 80 was reserved for the "C" you punched before you
turned the card around. That, and using a different color stripe for
each revision, allowed you to backtrack :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > (Then you can just pick up the 'scrambled' deck, make a few passes through
> > the 'sorter', and have everything back in the right order.)
>
> On the unit we had about 50% of the time it was a sorter. The other 50% it
> was a shredder.
>
One of the first times I could have used the ROTFLMAO tag was when our
IBM CE got his tie caught in a running 083. Had his face almost down on
the glass by the time he got it stopped :-). And the tie was a total
loss.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

DSL $24.95 per month


"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
> never
> go back. How about all of you?
>
> --
> Jeff P.
>
> "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
> can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
> you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno
>
>
> Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com
>
>
>

"Jeff P." wrote:
snip
> I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet.
Dial up. I considered DSL, but they have issues with too many
devices on one line. Cable was considered, but I'd have to set up
a router (and you know I prefer Neandering) and wire all the
computers. Expensive and pricey along with the security hassles.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

Robert Bonomi wrote:

> (Then you can just pick up the 'scrambled' deck, make a few passes through
> the 'sorter', and have everything back in the right order.)

On the unit we had about 50% of the time it was a sorter. The other 50% it
was a shredder.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Larry Blanchard apparently said,on my timestamp of 1/02/2005 5:50 AM:

>>I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.
>>
>>The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
>>bastards suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,

Hehehe! Carrier pigeons anyone?

> Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

Ah yes. My pet hate was the Hollerith punching machine:
the crap computer dept at uni couldn't afford electric ones,
so students had to punch Fortran programs with the manual
puncher, one column-at-a-time... ARRRGHH!

Shall I mention the demented coronel who wanted us to
destroy the confetti for security reasons?

> I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
> know what those were :-).
>

Oh yes we would! :)

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
[email protected]

<snippage>
"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
> go back. How about all of you?
>
> --
> Jeff P.
<snippage>
DSL at home, wideband wireless at the office.
Tom

Thomas Bunetta wrote:

> DSL at home, wideband wireless at the office.
> Tom

Cable at home but I'm lucky to get 19K on dial up at work and I work for AT&...
SB... one of the major phone companies.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thomas Bunetta wrote:
>
> > DSL at home, wideband wireless at the office.
> > Tom
>
> Cable at home but I'm lucky to get 19K on dial up at work and I work for
AT&...
> SB... one of the major phone companies.
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
>
ouch! That sucks!
Tom

B a r r y wrote:

> Nova wrote:
> >I work for AT&...
> > SB... one of the major phone companies.
>
> Me too.
>
> How you lookin' for post merger?
>
> I'll probably be doing something else. <G>
>
> Barry

I decided to hang on for a while longer and try and make there life as
miserable as they've made mine the last... oh 20 years.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>go back. How about all of you?

I try to design both commercial and personal sites for the "lowest
common denominator"...
We tend to build stuff the way WE want to look at it.... high res,
lots of flash and graphics, etc.... and the average guy can't or won't
wait to get there before hitting the BACK button..

Apart from having a mirror site and diverting the broadband folks
there, the best bet might be to build it "lean & mean" with a lot of
links to graphics and stuff labeled "suggested for broadband only" or
something like that..

If you've been on a dialup and had to wait for the graphics and flash
opening page of a complex site, you know what I man.. *g*



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>go back. How about all of you?

DirecWay satellite broadband. Live too far out to get DSL or cable.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>go back. How about all of you?

Unrestricted DSL - leaves the CO at 8, but it's down to 6-7 megs by
the time it gets to my end of the cable.

Barry

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Broadband has spoiled me. Years ago with a 14.4 modem I would hit a link
> and go get a drink of water, take a leak and come back.to see it finish.
> Long times were acceptable. Today, I would not wait 30 seconds.unless at
> least part of the page was loaded and visible.
>

Yeah, I remember those days.

> Good graphics are good. Clutter and music and I hit the stop button

I hit the "back" button faster than you can bat an eyelash when a site has
music.


--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:26:22 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
>
>> Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:
>>
>> 1. Write program on coding sheets.
>> 2. Give to keypuncher.
>> 3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
>> 4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
>> interpreter).
>> 5. Hand deck to computer operator.
>> 6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
>> 7. Check results.
>> 8. Find bug - start over.
>>
>> I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
>> know what those were :-).
>
>You forgot 5a. Drop deck and spill cards on floor ... start over.


That's what columns 72-80 are for, sequencing. Or, you can draw a
diagonal over the edge of the deck using one of several colors of
highlighters. We didn't have the luxury of keypunch operators, but
used the 029s until TSO came along.

Comcast Cable, recently upgraded for us without asking, and for no
additional charge, to 4MB download speed.


"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
> never
> go back. How about all of you?
>
> --
> Jeff P.
>
> "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
> can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
> you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno
>
>
> Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com
>
>
>

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>go back. How about all of you?


I'm on dialup. Broadband cable is too expensive here ($84/mo) and DSL
won't sync up (I guess too far from the Central Office), so I'm
sticking to the $12.95 a month. I suggest making thumbnails. Use
pictures no more than 150 dpi. Yes, I become impatient if I have to
wait more than a minute for a page to load.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:22:59 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:


>It's hard to beat going from taking 30 hours to 20 minutes to download
>something big.

Even the web and usenet is so much better on broadband, ANY broadband.
<G>

Barry

A good web designer will allow you to skip heavy graphic AVIs and test
the site using Netscape, Opera, and Mozilla. Even better yet, the
designer can detect the connection speed, browser, and O/S and take
you to the page that will properly load in a reasonable time. The
Toyota web site sucked when all I wanted to get were dimensions and
towing capacity of their vehicles. The truth is that Americans buy
vehicles based on appearance more than anything else. And those web
site that play songs are irritating.


On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:49:15 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws_@*yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>>go back. How about all of you?
>
>Thanks for asking!
>
>While I have a second line just for the computer, it's POTS and I'm
>out in the country. I have two computers with 56K modems, desktop and
>laptop. Desktop now has external hardware modem. Connects at 28.8K.
>Same for the laptop.
>
>To damn many website designers figure that everyone has a personal T1
>line and design their site accordingly. They also assume that
>everyone uses IE too. (I also have friends who like to forward
>"funny" email with 2-megabyte file attachments. Mailwasher takes care
>of those for me.)
>
>For example, I wanted to shop Ford trucks. Ford's website wants me to
>have Flash installed. (After hearing about the recent recall of Ford
>trucks, I think that they installed "flash" under the hoods of their
>trucks too.)
>
>I emailed Ford and informed them that the percentage of the population
>that is still on dialup was a lot higher than the percentage of the
>population who drive Fords and if they wanted to improve that, they
>had best fire their web designers and start over. I got an email
>back, thanking me for my *email* and asking me to take a customer
>survey about my experience. I said, what the hell and opened the
>survey. The questions all related to my *telephone* call to customer
>service. I'm sticking with my '98 Chevy.
>
>Another example: I have an IRA at Schwab. They are constantly
>bugging me to turn off paper statements and get them via the web. But
>if I want a transaction history, I have to wait for an HTML table to
>be generated. Then I can't get the underlying data so I have to print
>it and this requires another wait while that is formatted. And I
>still have a piece of paper, only it cost me to print it. I don't
>have any money on deposit at Yahoo finance, but they give lots of info
>in downloadable spreadsheet format for free. I use Firefox for a
>browser. Some "features" at Schwab don't work correctly. When I call
>their tech support they say, "Oh, you need to use IE." The customer
>is always wrong.
>
>From my perspective, give me your thoughts in text. If you need
>pictures or graphics to make your case, put 'em in thumbnail form and
>I'll look at them if necessary. My wife keeps my cookie jar full, I
>don't need any from you, thanks anyway. I like to install my own
>software as needed and I make my own coffee. Keep your Java to
>yourself. Photographs need to be framed sometimes, but I don't need
>them on my CRT. If you have numbers for me, give 'em to me in a
>downloadable .csv file. If your document requires precise formatting,
>better do it in .pdf that will survive different browser
>idiosyncrasies.
>
>Just my humble opinion.
>

"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jeff P. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that
>>the
>>14.4 modem was "smokin".
>
>
> Bah! You're a newbie. <grin>
>
> I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.
>
> The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
> bastards suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,
>

My first was one of those clickity, clackety teletype machines with an
acoustic coupler. You'd dial up a remote bulletin board, listen for the
beeeeeeeeep and jam the phone handset onto the modem. Mine even had a
paper punch to store some of my machine code programs. I'm glad those good
ole days are gone.

Larry

"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >A good web designer will allow you to skip heavy graphic AVIs and test
> >the site using Netscape, Opera, and Mozilla.
>
> That is what a *mediocre* web designer will do. Admittedly, that *is* a
step
> above what a "M$ brainwashed" one does.
>
> A _good_ designer *knows* that there are _standards_ -- which describe a
base
> set of capabilities that =all= web-browsers support; writes _to_ those
> standards, *and* employs a 'validator' to TEST FOR COMPLIANCE with those
> aforementioned standards.
>
> A good designer also checks site functionality using a browser like
"LYNX",
> which runs on text-only dumb terminals, doesn't attempt graphics in any
form,
> and doesn't do Java, Javascript, Flash, or any of the rest of that cr*p.
>
> A good designer may _use_ those 'flash & sizzle' whiz-bang gadgets, but he
> will also ensure that the site is 100% functional _without_ any of them.
>
> *GOOD* web designers are _very_ scarce!
>
> Make that very, Very, *V*E*R*Y* scarce.
>
> Unfortunately.

Man, if only more web sites worked right on LYNX, the world would be a
better place.

todd

Same here, Cable, and for the same reasoning too.

Jeff P. wrote:

>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>go back. How about all of you?
>
>
>

"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
> go back. How about all of you?
>

DSL. Love it.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Just out of curiosity, how do you like Directway and how's the quality of
service? Price?

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> >always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> >people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> >connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> >have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
> >go back. How about all of you?
>
> DirecWay satellite broadband. Live too far out to get DSL or cable.
>
>
>
>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----+
>
> The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
>
> Army General Richard Cody
>
>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----+

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

> Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:
>
> 1. Write program on coding sheets.
> 2. Give to keypuncher.
> 3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
> 4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
> interpreter).
> 5. Hand deck to computer operator.
> 6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
> 7. Check results.
> 8. Find bug - start over.
>
> I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
> know what those were :-).

You forgot 5a. Drop deck and spill cards on floor ... start over.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that the
14.4 modem was "smokin".

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


"Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P." <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> >always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> >people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> >connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> >have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
> >go back. How about all of you?
>
> Dialup with such rotten phone lines that I've never been able to get
better than
> 28.8 on a very good day. Typically it come in at 26.4.
>
> If they ever get cable (or DSL capability) out to our neck of the
boondocks,
> I'll abandon this dialup so fast it'll make you dizzy.
>
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA

"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
> never
> go back. How about all of you?

I have cable and wireless router hooked to the cable modem.. There is some
degradation during peak cable use hours but it's worth the $$$$. Only thing
faster that I've used is the WiFi 'hotspot"down at the public library where
they have a fiber-optic feed. Life's too short to wait with dial-up..

Larry

4.1mb cable
"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
> never
> go back. How about all of you?
>
> --
> Jeff P.
>
> "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
> can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
> you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno
>
>
> Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com
>
>
>

"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
> go back. How about all of you?
>
> --
> Jeff P.
>
> "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
> can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
> you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno
>
>
> Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

I got cable when it first came to my neck of the woods about 8 years ago.
We're looking to move to a new house sometime soon, and broadband access is
at the top of my "need" list. There's just no possible way I'm going from
3,000,000 bps to 50,000 bps (at best). Unfortunately, web designers, like
public school teachers, have to work to the lowest common denominator. So,
when you're testing your redesign, either test it using a modem or configure
your web server to throttle the bandwidth accordingly.

todd

"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and
> I'm always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that
> some people might get frustrated with download times if they have a
> slower connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection
> most of you have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's
> pricey but I'll never go back. How about all of you?
>

D ... i ... a ... l ... u ... p.

We are on Direcway 6000 and could not be happier. It's a bit pricey for the
first 15 months but the 1100 bps or so is sure nice.

"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message

> My pages should all load in less than 30 seconds.
> From what I've researched, however, the magic mark is 10 seconds. Now,
> I'm
> never going to get it there because I DO want to use a lot of graphics but

Good graphics are good. Clutter and music and I hit the stop button.

Broadband has spoiled me. Years ago with a 14.4 modem I would hit a link
and go get a drink of water, take a leak and come back.to see it finish.
Long times were acceptable. Today, I would not wait 30 seconds.unless at
least part of the page was loaded and visible.

Dreamweaver gives an estimated load time for your pages but I test them
anyway with my auxilary dial up line that Roadrunner provides. I've found
the times in Dreamweaver quite accurate. My goal is to keep all load times
in the 15 to 25 second range for a 56k connection.

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> > always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> > people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> > connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of
you
> > have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
> never
> > go back. How about all of you?
> >
> > --
> > Jeff P.
> >
> > "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
> > can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
> > you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno
> >
> >
> > Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com
>
> I got cable when it first came to my neck of the woods about 8 years ago.
> We're looking to move to a new house sometime soon, and broadband access
is
> at the top of my "need" list. There's just no possible way I'm going from
> 3,000,000 bps to 50,000 bps (at best). Unfortunately, web designers, like
> public school teachers, have to work to the lowest common denominator.
So,
> when you're testing your redesign, either test it using a modem or
configure
> your web server to throttle the bandwidth accordingly.
>
> todd
>
>

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:19:11 -0800, mac davis
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>>go back. How about all of you?
>
>I try to design both commercial and personal sites for the "lowest
>common denominator"...
>We tend to build stuff the way WE want to look at it.... high res,
>lots of flash and graphics, etc.... and the average guy can't or won't
>wait to get there before hitting the BACK button..

Keep in mid that the Web is a three-dimensional medium. The third
dimension isn't depth -- it is time.

Further remember that flash and graphics -- unless used wisely --
produce a lower-quality experience for the viewer. For example looping
animations may look neat, but they're highly distracting because the
pull the eye away from the information.

One of the problems with Web designers is that most of them are either
re-tread graphic designer or (worse) video people, or they were
trained by graphic and video designers. Even after all this time a lot
of them still don't have their heads around the fact that the Web is a
different medium with significantly different rules.

(Okay, I'll shut up now and go take my pill. But I feel much better.
Thanks.)

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

"Maverick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We are on Direcway 6000 and could not be happier. It's a bit pricey for
the
> first 15 months but the 1100 bps or so is sure nice.

Which plan are you on, and how much is it after the first 15 months? I will
be moving to a non-cable area later this year, and in order to keep my
business running smoothly, I need to put in a satellite dish for internet.
I have looked at DirecWay but not found a lot of third-party comments on it.

Jon E

Nova wrote:

> I decided to hang on for a while longer and try and make there life as
> miserable as they've made mine the last... oh 20 years.


'Sounds like location changes, everything else doesn't. <G>

Barry

Currently dialup 56K, switching to DSL this week. Tried RR a year or so
back, loved it, but couldn't afford it. Right now I've got DSL through my
local ISP for $29.90/mo. for 1 yr. with option to renew for 2nd yr. @ same
price.

9600 memories; mid 80's, data entry system running entry terminals @ 9600 on
a big MX'er, they were complaining of losing data. Watched the girls, they
were faster than the connection, over-running the buffers. They just had to
slow down a tiny bit.

--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.




"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jeff P. <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that
the
> >14.4 modem was "smokin".
>
>
> Bah! You're a newbie. <grin>
>
> I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.
>
> The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
> bastards suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,
>

"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<sniperoo>

> Should I mention plug-board programming an IBM 046 ??
>
Early 60's, programmer nick-named "Smoky". Changed program by pulling *one*
end of wire(yep, "hot" end was still plugged in), closed panel, it started
smoking. He turned it off, left room, announced "It's Broke" and returned to
his cell.

--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.

"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Norman D. Crow <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Currently dialup 56K, switching to DSL this week. Tried RR a year or so
> >back, loved it, but couldn't afford it. Right now I've got DSL through my
> >local ISP for $29.90/mo. for 1 yr. with option to renew for 2nd yr. @
same
> >price.
> >
> >9600 memories; mid 80's, data entry system running entry terminals @ 9600
on
> >a big MX'er, they were complaining of losing data. Watched the girls,
they
> >were faster than the connection, over-running the buffers. They just had
to
> >slow down a tiny bit.
>
> 9600 baud is almost _ten_thousand_ words per minute.
>
> Postulating that the mux _uplink_ was at 9600, and supporting 32
terminals,
> They _each_ would have had to be typing at close to 300 words/minute to
over-
> load the link. color me *very* skeptical. :)
>
> Now, if it was a 64-terminal mux, on a 9.6k uplink, that's getting closer
to
> 'believable'.
>
Color me red! Maybe they were 1200. I do know the girls running entry could
over-run and lose data(usually fast numeric entry, then *return* or *enter*
to skip to next field). Each terminal had it's own line to a "modem" in the
MX'er, the MX was running straight on a common trunk into the processor, an
NCR Century 200, which at that time was our top of the line.

--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:06:22 -0600, "Jeff P."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> I'm on dialup. Broadband cable is too expensive here ($84/mo)
>
>$84 A MONTH!!! Holy crap. I just got Roadrunner to give me a promotional
>rate of $35 a month for a year by complaining and I thought that was still
>too much. I guess it's all relative.
>
>> Yes, I become impatient if I have to
>> wait more than a minute for a page to load.
>
>My pages should all load in less than 30 seconds.
>From what I've researched, however, the magic mark is 10 seconds.

It's a time-decay function. The longer it takes for the page to load
the more users you will lose. 6 seconds is where it starts getting
noticable and the percentage you lose doubles every few seconds after
that. At 30 seconds you're probably losing a significant number of
potential viewers.

There are ways around this. One of the easiest is to use a
fast-loading page with no graphics that displays information in text
while the main page finishes loading. Often this is the same text that
is on the main page, just with no graphics, background, etc.

But the rule is: The sooner you start giving them some useful content,
the more of them will stick around.

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

Nowadays a cable modem. Yeehaw!

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>go back. How about all of you?

Jeff P. wrote:
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
> go back. How about all of you?
>

Check out

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0501/

The data as of January was 55% broadband, 45% dialup at HOME. Growth of
broadband is about 10%/year roughly. These are US figures. Canadian
numbers are probably more skewed in favour of broadband.

At work, 81% of users have highspeed.

As for content, a picture is a good thing if it is really necessary,
like a picture of an article I am bidding on on ebay. A huge flash
presentation that is automatically displayed for me is annoying even
with broadband. So is sound.

You can do alot with pictures, even for users with 56K dialup accounts
if you process all your pictures to reduce the number of colours and
resolution. JPEGs, or PNGs don't need to be 32bit colour multi-megabit
for most things. Good clear pictures can be a few K compressed and that
should take only a second to download.

If you have video, use RealVideo which lets you embed multispeed
datastreams to support low speed and high speed alike.

I second the request to support more than just MS Explorer (I'm Linux)

I run a commercial website and you can be successful with a clean, clear
presentation, lots of content, and graphics and pictures where needed.

Rob

"Larry Bud" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> On your home page, you're using the browser to resize your "pens"
> picture. The quality on that particular graphic stinks, and you're
> using up bandwidth because the entire pic has to d/l anyway. You
> should resize it in your graphics software.

I appreciate the comments Larry. I missed the fact that that pic was
resized. Not intentional. I resized it just to see what size I wanted it
and then forgot to go back into PS and do it for real. It's too big now
even when resized in browser. I'm still in the process of optimizing all
the graphics and the links page was one that I've yet to tackle.

>
> IMO, I'd lose all the drop shadows. I find them annoying, and you're
> going against convention and placing the light source in the upper
> right instead of the upper left. It's somewhat disconcerting, and it
> would save you time and bandwidth if you dropped them. Just use a
> nice 1 px border with style sheets.
>

I really like the drop shadow but I guess you can't please everyone. I
wanted a look as though it was all laying on a table in front of you.
While convention may dictate that the light comes from the other way(I
didn't know that), I can't see that it matters much at all. I like em so
I'll keep em in (at least until version 3.0) but I thank you for your
comments.


>
> If your hosting provider provides for some scripting, I would get rid
> of your email address and make a form that people fill out. This will
> eliminate any spam bots from gathering your email address.
>

That's an awesome idea. I haven't had any problem as of yet with spam on
that add but time will tell it's been up for over a year now). Might be
that a form would make it easier for people to leave feedback or drop a
line.

One question. I added a layer centering behavior because I just think it
looks better centered but what do you think? Just did it this morning so if
you didn't visit today (Monday) check back.

Thanks again

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

Cable here.

Ian


"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
> always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
> people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
> connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
> have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
> never
> go back. How about all of you?
>
> --
> Jeff P.
>
> "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
> can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
> you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno
>
>
> Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com
>
>
>

"Olebiker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All the telephone company is required to provide is voice-quality
> communications. There is no requirement for any minimum data transfer
> rate. I work for a state utility commission and hear folks complain
> bout this quite a bit. You can call all you want; we don't have the
> authority to require more. The only thing that is going to make the
> telephone companies provide better internet service is for competition
> to force it to do so.
>
> Dick Durbin

At this point in time, it probably doesn't make sense for your ILEC to do
anything about data transfer speed. It's just not in their interest to do
so. They would just as soon you get tired of dialup and move to DSL. Why
should they make an investment in improving data on the phone lines when
they see the direction broadband is going? In 10 years, I suspect there
will be maybe 10% of internet users in the US on dialup. I just wish the
satellite internet service would get to be usable so I would be free to move
out to the country.

todd

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:26:22 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
>
>> Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

I only did this stuff once, when I took an in-house Fortran course. I
modified the steps slightly:
>>
>> 1. Write program on coding sheets.
>> 2. Give to keypuncher.

2a. Started dating Keypunch operator.

>> 3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours

3a. No waiting.

>> 4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
>> interpreter).
>> 5. Hand deck to computer operator.

5a. Set up date for later.

>> 6 Wait - depending on your priority level.

6a. Batch processing overnight. Take keypunch operator to dinner,
etc.

>> 7. Check results.

7a. Morning coffee with keypunch operator.

>> 8. Find bug - start over.

Yes.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote:

>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>go back. How about all of you?

Dialup with such rotten phone lines that I've never been able to get better than
28.8 on a very good day. Typically it come in at 26.4.

If they ever get cable (or DSL capability) out to our neck of the boondocks,
I'll abandon this dialup so fast it'll make you dizzy.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Oh, yeah! Many years ago I spent the enormous money it took to buy a
Hayes Ultra 96 modem. An incredible 9600 baud. Wow! About 4x faster
than the one it replaced. But it was it's own problem. It cost so
very much I held onto it with a death grip. When I finally let go, I
got a 56.6 (?) modem. I managed to skip all the steps inbetween. :)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:39:11 GMT, "Jeff P."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that the
>14.4 modem was "smokin".

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:21:04 GMT, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>>go back. How about all of you?
>
>Dialup with such rotten phone lines that I've never been able to get better than
>28.8 on a very good day. Typically it come in at 26.4.
>
>If they ever get cable (or DSL capability) out to our neck of the boondocks,
>I'll abandon this dialup so fast it'll make you dizzy.
>
>
>Tom Veatch
>Wichita, KS USA

Have you complained to the phone company about that? If so and to no
avail, have you contacted your PUC (state regulator)? Your state
rep/senator? In some states the "standard" has been simply clear voice
service, modems be damned. (Even in upscale, close-in suburban areas
telcos would spli the bandwidth on copper wires to serve two homes rather
than run new wires, thereby capping dial-up speeds.) But that has been
changing as Internet service is coming to be considered as a "basic"
service. By federal mandate a lot of money is collected from telephone
users around the country to subsidize local phone facilities in rural
areas. If this were just 2-3 years ago, things might be different, but by
now I think your telco could do better on dial-up speeds.

Certainly there are only so many hours in the day and a list of things to
be done, but it could be worth the effort of a few phone calls and/or
letters.

While I have not investigated the particulars, there are some ISPs (local
to your area?) that enhance effective speeds by compressing data at their
end before sending it down the local wires to you and then your computer
expands them so they can be displayed. Whether that is available and
effective at 28.8, I don't know.

Good luck. -- Igor

Jeff P. asks:


>>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>>go back. How about all of you?

I have DSL.

> Jeff P. asks:
>
>
>>> I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>>>have to the internet.

Home: DSL
Work: DSL

I'd estimate at least 40% of my friends with computers have broadband. One
still has a 28.8 modem.

On 30 Jan 2005 19:55:14 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:

>Jeff P. asks:
>
>>
>>I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
>>always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
>>people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
>>connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
>>have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
>>go back. How about all of you?
>
>DIal up. I've had cable and miss it. I can miss it until my hair falls out and
>it makes NO difference. It isn't available this far from town.
>
>Charlie Self
>"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
>kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
>2000

I'm on cable, but I know a lot of people on dial-up. Also keep in mind
those throughput numbers are theoretical maximums. Real world
performance is a lot less.

If you feel you need a lot of graphics you may want to provide an
alternate layout for people with slower connections. You can do a
text-only version of your page or you can use thumbnails the reader
has to click on to enlarge. Also keep in mind that some folks are
visually impaired and some people run with graphics turned off to
speed loading.

Now, to the real point. "Tons of graphics" is a lousy design standard,
no matter how fast the link. Newspaper people have a term for that
kind of layout: "Full French circus". That is _not_ a compliment. Too
many graphics make a site harder to read, slow comprehension and make
the reader lose interest faster. (How do I know? Because there have
been a ton of studies done on readability over the last century. We've
learned a lot about how people absorb and interpret visual
information.)

The Japanese aesthetic of sparseness is much more likely to be
effective than a whole bunch of graphics.

Think first in terms of content, breaking it down into closely related
elements on different pages. Next think in terms of the design and
layout that will support your content. Finally, think in terms of the
graphic elements that will be part of that design and content.

So how much graphics is too much graphics? That depends first on your
audience, second on what you're trying to communicate and third on
what kind of meta-message you're trying to send your readers.

Think those things through, sketch out some site maps and basic page
layouts and see how you'll tie it all together.

This is at the top of my mind right now because I'm designing a
semi-personal Web page that has to bridge contrasting -- and sometimes
conflicting -- areas of interest for rather different audiences.

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote

> I'm on dialup. Broadband cable is too expensive here ($84/mo)

$84 A MONTH!!! Holy crap. I just got Roadrunner to give me a promotional
rate of $35 a month for a year by complaining and I thought that was still
too much. I guess it's all relative.

> Yes, I become impatient if I have to
> wait more than a minute for a page to load.

My pages should all load in less than 30 seconds.
From what I've researched, however, the magic mark is 10 seconds. Now, I'm
never going to get it there because I DO want to use a lot of graphics but
I'm finding that if I optimize my graphics as much as possible and still
retain quality that I'm getting it down to 15 to 20 seconds on a 56k dialup
line. I managed to get the total size of my projects page down to under
100k from a high of almost 200k by running all my images through Adobe
Imageready. I'm still working on the rest of my site but it's almost there.

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com