|
|
Posted by Chris Tomlinson on 07/07/06 10:52
"Brian Cryer" <brian.cryer@127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4uadnVXQppScgTPZRVnyrQ@pipex.net...
>> Hi Brian, yes that's right -- in fact that *is* what you were looking at,
>> but we did it so cunningly you couldn't tell. ;) The issue is getting
>> the divs to load in the right order.
>
> Are you sure? because I downloaded the "highstreet" as a single image.
That would be very odd if so. Take a look in your cache and for the
Richmond page you will find 6 sliced JPGs. Unless your browser has
Photoshop built in ;)
> Agreed. Personally I don't like scrolling - but that's just my preference.
> If you want to keep the scroll then consider modifying the site so it
> isn't a fixed width. The monitor I'm using at the moment runs at 1600
> pixels wide, so whilst I would still need to scroll, it would help if I
> didn't have a white border down the left and right hand sides. No, don't
> design for a
It's a good idea which we are already planning.
> larger width, just allow your page to adjust to the browser width. (By the
> way, I don't normally run my browser window full screen, and at my
> preferred size I have a horizontal scroll bar just to see the rest of your
> page.)
The site will work without a scrollbar at 1024 upwards, so your preferred
width must fall just a bit short of that. Oops, sorry.
> Something else that might help (with loading times at least) would be to
> reduce the size (height and width) of the image.
We have struggled with this, but it is the optimum height from testing where
users felt they were getting a realistic experience. It also is the
absolute minimum where the smallest ePosters (120x60) actually fit in the
shops' windows. There are many other factors too. And just reducing them
what looks like a lot only resulted in a small reduction in file size. We
are also compressing them to 40%.
>> Can we ask your connection speed? How long did it take to load roughly?
>
> Connection speed here is 512kbps, which is shared amongst the office (12
> of us). Clearing my browser cache and reloading, I think it was about
> 12seconds to load everything, although the outline of the site came up
> much sooner than that.
That is consistent with our market research. Also the general consensus is
anything under 15 seconds is acceptable to the user, anything more is a
worry. So, whilst we are glad you are within our target range on a shared
slow broadband :) we still want to make the page 'usable' if not fully
loaded, sooner.
The idea there is to present the first JPG slice ASAP, and the rest can
follow as the user doesn't need them until they scroll or cross the road.
>> What would you suggest instead of the 3 tables on the page? Do these
>> really add a lot to the load time do you think?
>
> The disadvantage of a table (in IE at least) is that IE won't display
> anything (of the table) until it has finished reading/downloading all the
> html for the table. This means that if the entire page were contained
> within a table then IE won't render anything until it has read to the end
> of the file. (This doesn't mean it needs to have downloaded the images,
> just the HTML.) I take my original comment back, because I see now that
> you do indeed have three separate tables and I had originally thought you
> had just one. Leave it for now, and ignore my comment.
Thanks, but for the future, what method do other designers use for
presenting such info as our instructions table etc.? There are a lot of
sites which load pretty graphic 'tables' around the page, but they are
usually divs. Is there a program they use to automatically create these
graphical elements and align them in WYSIWYG? E.g. our partners at
www.GreasyPalm.co.uk
> --
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
Appreciate your support Brian, many many thanks.
--
Thanks,
Me
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|