|
|
Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 11/02/51 11:23
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 21:41:29 -0700, "^reaper^" <knocking@deaths.door>
wrote:
>[snecked and snipped]
>
>While sipping absinthe, Onideus Mad Hatter heard a loud sucking noise
>coming from alt.2600, and hastily inscribed the following unintelligible
>Sanskrit in <news:qd0ef1d1ajqcr1rpe011g64sr77q6tqk2b@4ax.com>:
>
>> And add about a second to the overall page rendering time...in which
>> case teh saving don't amount for much. I plan to do some tests with
>> Reaper's code
>
>You can try this for starters: http://www.spyderware.net/farfoos/
Hrmmm...if it's THAT slow just for loading teh background I'd be
better off just using a giant 90KB single graphic for teh static image
portions.
I think I'm gonna just incorporate cascading style sheets, but unlike
your example I think I'll try using multiples...unless they turn out
to be incompatible with teh Mac...although I'm gettin REAL close to
just giving Mac the finger.
Kinda like this
d.pos { position:absolute }
d.hid { overflow:hidden }
with the class like this:
<d class="pos hid">
That should cut down significantly on the overall amount of text, not
sure how it'll affect rendering speed though yet. The other thing I'm
going to do is have all the static elements right in the HTML itself,
rather than using js and document writes, I figure I'll only use that
when it's absolutely necesary (for animated elements).
The other thing I'm going to look into is whether or not Flash
supports image transparencies, if it does, I might just replace the
Javascript controlled drop downs with Flash ones. Not sure yet how
that'll affect the overall size, but it will be a bit more cross
browser compatible that way since I believe almost all major browsers
accept the Flash plugin.
I also want to test out Flash with my image fragments, I'm wondering
whether it'll actually save each image in its original format within
itself or if it tries to convert them in any sort of manner and if the
former, what sort of overhead does Flash add. Cause it might actually
work out to be less overhead than CSS. And again, with Flash, it
would pretty much take out the "cross browser compatibility" issue
altogether.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
[Back to original message]
|