Posted by The Eclectic Electric on 01/24/07 22:53

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-55E626.09141325012007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <ts1fr21p2j42gsask1cbn0ohciupif125v@4ax.com>,
> William Hughes <cvproj@grandecom.net> wrote:
>
>> What is the consensus about an acceptable maximum limit on HTML file
>> sizes or number of screens per page?
>>
>> I have some files at http://home.grandecom.net/~cvproj/carrier.htm
>> that are approaching 175k+, or fill several screens - mostly with
>> tabular data. All of these pages are subject to expansion as I develop
>> the site.
>>
>> Is the filesize/screen count a problem in this case? Should I split
>> the files?
>>
>> The particular pages in question are:
>>
>> Carrier Names:
>> http://home.grandecom.net/~cvproj/gen-names.htm
>
> I would be inclined to make a page per letter. It is simply not a
> page that many folk would read and scroll.
>
> Have not looked at other urls you mention, but this reasoning may
> give you a clue about a different point of view on them too.
>

But for me, that adds more clicks to my viewing, whereas a large table means
I can simply scroll up and down with my mouse. I guess it's a matter of
taste.

+e

[Back to original message]