|
|
Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 06/30/05 04:55
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:31:59 +0100, Mimic <dev@null.net> wrote:
>>>You know, it would be nice if these challenge sites didnt
>>>A: look like spic shit
>> I assume you're talking about Noodle Head's crap.
>Both really. But I did close yours down before it finished - took too
>long. And obviously, unlike "noodlehead", you havent claimed to have
>finished.
Pffft, you should have waited, it was worth it. Guess you'll never
know though if you're always in such a hurry. People really do need
to learn to have a bit more patience in my opinion. Peeps like you
remind me of the morons I see almost running red lights just so they
can get to their destination a whole 30 seconds faster. Seriously, is
it worth it? Take your time, enjoy life, take it all in.
>>>B: take 20years to load.
>> I throttled my DSL connection down to only 10KBps and the whole thing
>> was finished loading in about 45 seconds...that's WAY better than most
>Thats nearly a minute :O
>You should be looking at full load within 30seconds and content within
>about 8-12. Think to yourself, "If I went to this site, would I wait
>this long?". Granted this is somewhat different as its a comp and
>everyone going there knows its going to be media intensive.
Bitch, bitch, bitch...fine...
*Hatter fires up his genius level uber l33t master ability.*
http://www.backwater-productions.net/alt.2600/index.html
Original Size - 432KB
New Size - 278KB
There, happy now? I cut it down by 154KB without losing any quality.
Think you can do any better? Nah, didn't think so, I've never seen
anyone who could match my skillz in teh graphic encoding
methodology...no one.
>> all high end multimedia sites and the final version will include a
>> loading screen (with giant letters saying THIS IS NOT FLASH). The
>Very good to hear :D perhaps something along the lines of your floating
>playable lilypad? Give the user something todo while it loads. I went to
>one site that had a flash loader for pingpong... kinda gutted when the
>site came up, I was in the middle of a game :P
Now ya see, there's that impatience thing all over again. Maybe
that's what I'll include, a nice BORING text for all to read about how
they need to have a lil more patience.
>> total site size is only 432KB (417 for the new working version) for
>> graphics that cover a range of 1003x596 and a shitload of alpha
>> transparencies. Which, is technically impossible...without using some
>> advanced tricks (image deconstruction). For example splitting the PNG
>> files apart and only using true color with alpha trans on the parts
>> that ACTUALLY have alpha trans and then using pallet based color on
>> the other parts and splitting apart those by color composition in
>> order to use smaller pallets...kinda like sorting your laundry by
>> color in a way.
>Did you checkout that PHP link I posted ?
>http://www.php.net/imagesavealpha and the like.
Not what I needed, but thanks. Teh new PNG alpha trans support
version looks like nyah:
:<?php
:
:$filename = 'clouds.png';
:
:list($width, $height) = getimagesize($filename);
:$new_width = $HTTP_COOKIE_VARS["farfoos"];
:$new_height = $height / $width * $new_width;
:
:$image_p = imagecreatetruecolor($new_width, $new_height);
:
: imageAntiAlias($image_p,true);
: imagealphablending($image_p, false);
: imagesavealpha($image_p,true);
: $transparent = imagecolorallocatealpha($image_p, 0, 0, 0, 127);
: imagefilledrectangle($image_p, 0, 0, $new_width, $new_height, $transparent);
:
:$image = imagecreatefrompng($filename);
:imagecopyresampled($image_p, $image, 0, 0, 0, 0, $new_width, $new_height, $width, $height);
:
:imagePNG($image_p);
:
:?>
That part in the middle there kinda stickin out is the additional part
that lets you use alpha transparencies.
>> Not to mention the fact that the php liquid form takes the images
>> server side, resamples them and THEN sends them to the user. Since
>> logic dictates that most users on dialup would also be using lower
>> resolutions the page will actually load faster for them because all
>> the images are resampled down to an 800x600 or less res.
>2 things; why net speed dictate resolution? Im on 56gay (only for a few
>days mor ethough wh00t) and I run at 1024*768, as do most people I know
>on 56.
....you actually know people who are on 56k? Wow...honestly I know
only like one person...and she lives out in the sticks.
Although I wasn't saying that speed would dictate res, I was merely
stating that it makes financial sense from the aspect of most people
on dialup are on it because they can't afford high speed and if they
can't afford high speed they're probably also using semi-outdated
equipment, ie 15 inch monitors that display best at 800x600.
And even if you want to play the card of "some countries don't have
high speed", well if that's the case they're probably using REALLY
outdated equipment as their country probably has strict regulations as
far as technology, so even if they have the money they're still using
slow connections on outdated equipment.
And further, at least in the US, you can't really play the "I have
tons of money, have a new system with a 17" monitor, but don't have
high speed cause I live out in the sticks" card either because
satellite Internet is not THAT expensive these days (and I would
imagine other countries besides the US have such services).
So the bottom line is that logic dictates slow connection == 800x600
res, in which case the site won't take that much time to load...unless
they just so happen to be using 1024x768, in which case they can shut
the fuck up and wait the extra 7 and a half seconds for the thing to
load.
>Also, um um, that was it, Im interested to know how you are dealing with
>resizing images that DONT stretch across the screen? I have implimented
>a method that works well, But I was wondering what your thoughts are?
Let me finish it first. I'm actually less concerned at this point
with resizing and more concerned about positioning, I need to come up
with like a buffer script or something so that everything will
reposition nicely...like on the current beta model there are images
aligned within images, but if the inner image gets resized with a
width of 20 and the out image's core winds up resized to 21, well
there's gonna be a lil sliced hole there.
>> In fact, I could even take it a step further by integrating my
>> bandwidth detection script and if the user is on a 56k connection is
>> could actually degrade the quality of the graphics a bit for them.
>> Wouldn't look as nice, but you seem to think speed is more important
>> than looks. *shrugs*
>I think speed, usability and asthetics should be top of the list :) but
>thats just me :)
Well as far as aesthetics I've pretty much just hammered it right out
the park.
Speed...couldn't be any better than what I've got it given the graphic
content and it's uber conservative compared to most sites of it's
caliber:
Dial Up - 6KBps ~ 46 Seconds
Low Speed DSL - 25KBps ~ 11.5 Seconds
Low Speed Cable - 100KBps ~ 3 Seconds
High Speed Cable - 300KBps ~ 1 Second
Usability, well the final version will be totally cross resolution
compatible, I'd say that's a definite plus. The site requires
JavaScript, which isn't a problem, only paranoid morons shut
JavaScript off anyway. Unless we're talkin like unsigned activeX
controls there's no need to be so anal unless you're being extra
stupid and visiting sites like www.pornqueenbananzaspamfest.com
Which is more than likely gonna try and throw every last trick in the
book at yer browser in order to get it infected with
something...anything...
To me though maximum usability is the default browser security
settings. Anything less or more than that is just somebody fuckin
around who probably shouldn't have been in the first place.
>If it doesnt load fast enough - they will leave and never return
>(hence why i prefer google > msn etc that load all that extra shit I
>dont need)
Google is a tool though, I wouldn't really classify it as a web site
persay. Tools obviously need to be uber conservative, whether we're
talkin a webmail interface or a search engine, they need to load uber
fast, even on a dialup connection.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|