New site, looking for critique on loading time

So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more graphics
(and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever been comfortable
with in the past. I think the main page loads fast enough...but, I use
cable internet.

Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism on the
general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be constructive...I
just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think I would need therapy if
the comments were too harsh!

http://www.AffordableHOST.com

Thanks in advance!

--Tina

--
http://www.AffordableHOST.com
LiveChat: http://chat.affordablehost.com
20% Discount Code: newsgroup
Serving the web since 1997

Tina - AffordableHOST.com

"Tina - AffordableHOST.com" <> wrote in message
news:...
> So, I've updated our site yet again.

> http://www.AffordableHOST.com

> Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism on
the
> general look of the site would be appreciated.

Why should I bother.

Last time you had this site here we had a discussion about using pictures of
text instead of the real text. I see that the most important bits of your
front page, that is the plans and the prices for those plans, are *still*
pictures of text, and a slightly blurry jpegs at that. Here is what that
page looks in Lynx:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/ah.gif

Are you *intentionally* discriminating against the how many millions of
blind/partially sighted people out there who may require cheap hosting? That
is important information, probably the most important information on your
site. If it is not accessable then that viewer will instantly go elsewhere.

As a side issue, when I adjust my IE font size up a bit (because you (like
that bloke I had a swipe at over at alt.html.critique) have specified
font-size: 11px) I find that only about half the text is stuck at that size.
The other half gets bigger and smaller, not nice.

Of course using Mozilla I can adjust the font exactly to my liking, *except
for your pricing*.

Cheers
Richard.

rf

Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:

> So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more graphics
> (and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever been comfortable
> with in the past. I think the main page loads fast enough...but, I use
> cable internet.
>
> Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism on the
> general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be constructive...I
> just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think I would need therapy if
> the comments were too harsh!
>
> http://www.AffordableHOST.com
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> --Tina
>

Your website design is highly questionable and highly debatable.
"Skize Media created our new look and Lake Superior Web Design polished
the html and layout." Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design are
obviously incompetent.

The page is invalid: it does not even have a doctype declaration which
is mandatory. The page uses deprecated elements (<center>,<font>), is
widely based on table design, uses absolute length units for font, uses
mindlessly MacroMedia script functions, uses map and area for no
justifiable reasons, use of 5 target="_blank" is not relevant and
definitively not justified, etc..
The list of keywords has redundances. The concern for accessibility in
that page is pretty weak.

Even your Client testimonials are not credible. I clicked all 4 links
and all I could ever read was this: "As of 10-22-2001, our hosting
services have been bought out by AffordableHOST.com. Please goto their
site for more information on web hosting services."

For a web host, your site does not promote in any way the kind of
quality and excellence you pretend to offer. I could do better than both
Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design in less than 2 days.

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunc...e7Section.html

DU

"Tina - AffordableHOST.com" <> wrote in
news::

> So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more
> graphics (and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever
> been comfortable with in the past. I think the main page loads fast
> enough...but, I use cable internet.
>
> Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism
> on the general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be
> constructive...I just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think
> I would need therapy if the comments were too harsh!
>
> http://www.AffordableHOST.com

Full load time for the whole thing was about 25 seconds; everything
important other than the "cpanel" images became visible after about 5
seconds. So I think you're doing just fine in that department.

Your title looks like a keyword list rather than a true title, giving it a
kind of "spammy" feel.

Your layout requires horizontal scrolling for window widths of less than
750 pixels, though it reflows properly in wider windows. A search on
"liquid design" should give you some pointers on how to overcome this.

Do you have a hover effect on your menubar? If so, it's a little too
subtle.

Eric Bohlman

"Eric Bohlman" <> wrote in message
news:Xns941CDFF125A54ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4 ...
> "Tina - AffordableHOST.com" <> wrote in
> news::
>
> > So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more
> > graphics (and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever
> > been comfortable with in the past. I think the main page loads fast
> > enough...but, I use cable internet.
> >
> > Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism
> > on the general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be
> > constructive...I just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think
> > I would need therapy if the comments were too harsh!
> >
> > http://www.AffordableHOST.com
>
> Full load time for the whole thing was about 25 seconds; everything
> important other than the "cpanel" images became visible after about 5
> seconds. So I think you're doing just fine in that department.
>
> Your title looks like a keyword list rather than a true title, giving it a
> kind of "spammy" feel.
>
> Your layout requires horizontal scrolling for window widths of less than
> 750 pixels, though it reflows properly in wider windows. A search on
> "liquid design" should give you some pointers on how to overcome this.
>
> Do you have a hover effect on your menubar? If so, it's a little too
> subtle.


Thank you, Eric! I had hoped for faster than 25 seconds load time...but I
guess, based on your comments, its still acceptable. I will see if we can
optimize the images better...or something.

Yes, there is a hover effect on the menu buttons. I'm not really wanting it
to jump out and grab you. I'll play around with that a bit though.

I had tested the pages at 600 x 800 resolution and they didn't scroll. Am I
missing something???

--Tina

--
http://www.AffordableHOST.com
LiveChat: http://chat.affordablehost.com
20% Discount Code: newsgroup
Serving the web since 1997

Tina - AffordableHOST.com

"DU" <> wrote in message
news:bn7f4b$gkp$...
> Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:
>
> > So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more graphics
> > (and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever been
comfortable
> > with in the past. I think the main page loads fast enough...but, I use
> > cable internet.
> >
> > Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism on
the
> > general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be
constructive...I
> > just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think I would need
therapy if
> > the comments were too harsh!
> >
> > http://www.AffordableHOST.com
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > --Tina
> >
>
> Your website design is highly questionable and highly debatable.
> "Skize Media created our new look and Lake Superior Web Design polished
> the html and layout." Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design are
> obviously incompetent.
>
> The page is invalid: it does not even have a doctype declaration which
> is mandatory. The page uses deprecated elements (<center>,<font>), is
> widely based on table design, uses absolute length units for font, uses
> mindlessly MacroMedia script functions, uses map and area for no
> justifiable reasons, use of 5 target="_blank" is not relevant and
> definitively not justified, etc..
> The list of keywords has redundances. The concern for accessibility in
> that page is pretty weak.
>
> Even your Client testimonials are not credible. I clicked all 4 links
> and all I could ever read was this: "As of 10-22-2001, our hosting
> services have been bought out by AffordableHOST.com. Please goto their
> site for more information on web hosting services."
>
> For a web host, your site does not promote in any way the kind of
> quality and excellence you pretend to offer. I could do better than both
> Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design in less than 2 days.


I appreciate you taking the time to peek at the site. I was actually just
asking about the load time and general layout. I'm aware that it doesn't
completely validate - and I'm willing to live with that (which is why I only
asked about load time and layout only).

The rest of your comments were a bit mean spirited. Off to therapy I go, I
guess!

--Tina

Tina - AffordableHOST.com

Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:
> ...
> I think the main page loads fast
> enough...but, I use cable internet.

Load times: <
http://r.netmechanic.com/toolbox/loa...&s=NetMechanic >

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

William Tasso

| I could do better than both
| Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design in less than 2 days.
|
| DU
| --
| Javascript and Browser bugs:
| http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
| - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
| - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
| http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunc...e7Section.html

judging from the sites in ur sig i very much doubt it...
---------------------------------------------------
Hung Diep
New Media Designer
www.intro-spect.co.uk
0795 6576 319

Barefoot Kid

Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:
> "DU" <> wrote in message
> news:bn7f4b$gkp$...
>
>>Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more graphics
>>>(and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever been
>
> comfortable
>
>>>with in the past. I think the main page loads fast enough...but, I use
>>>cable internet.
>>>
>>>Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism on
>
> the
>
>>>general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be
>
> constructive...I
>
>>>just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think I would need
>
> therapy if
>
>>>the comments were too harsh!
>>>
>>>http://www.AffordableHOST.com
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>>--Tina
>>>
>>
>>Your website design is highly questionable and highly debatable.
>>"Skize Media created our new look and Lake Superior Web Design polished
>>the html and layout." Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design are
>>obviously incompetent.
>>
>>The page is invalid: it does not even have a doctype declaration which
>>is mandatory. The page uses deprecated elements (<center>,<font>), is
>>widely based on table design, uses absolute length units for font, uses
>>mindlessly MacroMedia script functions, uses map and area for no
>>justifiable reasons, use of 5 target="_blank" is not relevant and
>>definitively not justified, etc..
>>The list of keywords has redundances. The concern for accessibility in
>>that page is pretty weak.
>>
>>Even your Client testimonials are not credible. I clicked all 4 links
>>and all I could ever read was this: "As of 10-22-2001, our hosting
>>services have been bought out by AffordableHOST.com. Please goto their
>>site for more information on web hosting services."
>>
>>For a web host, your site does not promote in any way the kind of
>>quality and excellence you pretend to offer. I could do better than both
>>Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design in less than 2 days.
>
>
>
> I appreciate you taking the time to peek at the site. I was actually just
> asking about the load time and general layout.

Then here's more.
- Many words are colored with the same color for links: so, as a
visitor, I can not quickly and visually figure out what are the links.
Not a big thing but if you are sensitive to small details with usability
consequences, then that's one.
- No margin on the page. So, the left side of the content starts at left
pixel 0. There is no printed document anywhere (newspaper, book,
magazines, etc..) in all cultures, in all societies, throughout history
which used no margin at all on a printed document. And removing margin
and padding on the body element was intentional, deliberate not an
accidental oversight or something
- Like someone else said, your title is spam-like. What's wrong with the
simple straightforward "Affordable Host, inc" as a title?
- Use pictures for real pictures; don't use pictures for text... unless
you want to reduce the accesibility of your site and to increase
download time deliberately
- use map and areas when it is justified and proper to do so

I came to your website for the first time yesterday. The word CPanel is
used at 6 spots. I have no idea what CPanel means or what it refers to
exactly. And I'm visiting the topmost page of your site.

I'm aware that it doesn't
> completely validate - and I'm willing to live with that (which is why I only
> asked about load time and layout only).
>

The top nr 1 and very first reason to validate is speed (webpage
rendering performance): I've said so before in this newsgroup. Right
now, above 70% of all users out there are using W3C web standards
compliant browsers which are geared and tuned to support W3C web
standards. As soon as you deliberately and intentionally use code that
will trigger backward compatible rendering mode in these browsers, then
you are choosing an inferior rendering mode which brings all kinds of
difficulties for users as well as webpage designers:
- inconsistent layout by browsers: If you can't test your documents in
all browsers (browser versions and other web-aware applications)
available out there, then validating your HTML is the best mean to make
sure that your document has the best chance of being rendered without
problems, by making sure your HTML doesn't have mistakes. Even MSDN
recommends that!
- longer parsing time due to malformed document tree or other problems
- error-correcting mechanisms involved during parsing time; these
mechanisms vary a lot from browser to browser, even from browser version
to browser version
- reduced accessibility
- reduced interoperability in several areas
- etc.

A wide majority of valid HTML documents will be considerably smaller in
size (by as much as 25% to 50%) because valid HTML documents often
assume CSS implementation where style formatting and code reusability
are best and optimal. Therefore download time should be smaller.

Choosing table design (and nested tables) to structure a document is
choosing an inferior design which is not best for parsing and rendering
and I'm talking about speed and browser rendering performance here. It
not only slows down the rendering, it makes the webpage more complex to
figure out, to update, to modify. The webpage is not easy to maintain
since its design was not based on code reusability, code evolutivity in
the first place.

Choosing table design for non-tabular data is as logical as using
MS-Excel to write a document, to write an email.

Choosing to ignore validation, choosing to put up with invalid documents
is as much professional as writing without concerns for badly formed
syntax, grammar errors, obvious spell-checking errors.

> The rest of your comments were a bit mean spirited. Off to therapy I go, I
> guess!
>
> --Tina
>
>

What irritated me the most with your webpage is that you pompuously
pretended that 2 companies worked on the html and layout when I really
think they did a LOUSY job. You want to give your company a
respectability and reputation regarding the quality and excellence of
its work, services, employees, etc...? Then start with your website
coding practices. One day, you might be able to calmly and confidently
claim in your own company website that your whole business is focused on
quality, excellence, accessibility, usability, wise and optimal use of
technology and then people who know their own art will start to believe
your own words by verifying that by themselves.

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunc...e7Section.html

DU

"rf" wrote:

> Are you *intentionally* discriminating against the how many millions of
> blind/partially sighted people out there who may require cheap hosting?

I'm interested to know how would a blind person know what any designed web
page looked like?

JT