«

Once upon a time *Barbara de Zoete* wrote:

> On 17 Aug 2005 06:04:12 -0700, <> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.spreha.net/>
>
> That page has some problems:
>
> 1. It is nearly a 100kB whithout the external images that is. Just the text and
> markup. That is waaaaaayy too much, believe me. Anyone on dial-up could have
> told you so.

Where do you see those 100kB for text and markup? I see only 10,49kB
(10741 bytes) but the total of images is 107kB and that makes the
total for the page way to much.


> 2. It relies heavily on javascript. An increasingly large amount of people does
> not have javascript active while browsing. One of the important visitors
> whithout it is Google BTW.

Works just fine with JS disabled (as I could see) and that makes me
wonder why all that JS is there? I could not see anything change when
I enabled JS. Apparently the page is done with Dremviewer that seams
to put in the "mouseover" script, whenever it's needed or not.

--
/Arne
My "widget" site: http://hem.bredband.net/arnel/
Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you
are replying to, and don't quote signatures!

Once upon a time *Hywel Jenkins* wrote:
>
> It uses JS for image rollovers. I tried it with Firefox, JS-disabled,
> and it seemed fine.

Did you see any rollovers on the page? I don't and I wonder what the
JS is there for? Dremviewer seams to put in a lot of script, whenever
it's needed or not.

--
/Arne
My "widget" site: http://hem.bredband.net/arnel/
Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you
are replying to, and don't quote signatures!

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:57:53 +0200, Arne <> wrote:

> Once upon a time *Barbara de Zoete* wrote:
>
>> 1. It is nearly a 100kB whithout the external images that is. Just the text
>> and markup. That is waaaaaayy too much, believe me. Anyone on dial-up could
>> have told you so.
>
> Where do you see those 100kB for text and markup? I see only 10,49kB
> (10741 bytes) but the total of images is 107kB and that makes the
> total for the page way to much.
>
>

Really? Makes me wounder. I get a page that is 91901kB on its own.

>> 2. It relies heavily on javascript. An increasingly large amount of people
>> does not have javascript active while browsing. One of the important
>> visitors whithout it is Google BTW.
>
> Works just fine with JS disabled (as I could see)

Hmm. Perhaps only if the images are there. I browse without them too. Without js
or images enabled, it's anyones guess where the links or the menu are at.


--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

"Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:

> Hywel Jenkins <> wrote:
>
> > "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:
> >>
> >> (Hint: my screen has a resolution of 1024x768, but the viewport I use to
> >> browse in is 655x436.
> >
> > That means you can't see your own site:
> > http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html
>
> So? 'Sinning' against a good principle doesn't make the principle less good.
> It just means I'm a 'sinner'.

It also tends to make both you and the principle seem less
authoritative. Why should a newbie think they have a decent chance of
pulling off a truly fluid design -- or think that it's even of value to
do so -- if the person they look to for advice can't do it?

Something is amiss. Maybe fluid design is not as easy as just saying
"make your design fluid", in which case people having discouraged from
it deserve a bit of sympathy.

Incidentally, that page has some real width problems when viewed in
Safari: fully half the page is off the right edge of my browser window
(which is roughly 700px wide at the moment). It appears the search
(Zoek?) box may be responsible, as it's hanging out by its lonesome on
the right, floating in a rather wide sea of blue.

--
Joel.

On 17/08/2005 16:57, Arne wrote:

> Once upon a time *Barbara de Zoete* wrote:

[snip]

>> 1. It is nearly a 100kB whithout the external images that is. Just
>> the text and markup. That is waaaaaayy too much, believe me. Anyone
>> on dial-up could have told you so.

As a dial-up user, I'd say that 100kB is fine, but that would be
everything, including images. As it is, the site is exceeding 200kB. Of
course, that's only if the document renders incrementally. Sitting
there, seeing only the start of a header for thirty seconds isn't
acceptable to me.

> Where do you see those 100kB for text and markup? I see only 10,49kB
> (10741 bytes) [...]

Mozilla isn't reporting the size correctly. Copy the source code, save
it, then look at the file size. It's 90kB.

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

On 17/08/2005 16:25, Hywel Jenkins wrote:

> In article <opsvnl9sazx5vgts@zoete_b>, says...
>
>> 1. It is nearly a 100kB whithout the external images that is. [...]
>
> Hmmm. I suspect the creators of Doom 3 were thinking along similar
> lines when they were working, too.

What is the OP using that justifies that file size, though?

It's Dreamweaver code bloat. Nothing more.

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:14:55 GMT, Joel Shepherd <> wrote:

> "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:
>
>> Hywel Jenkins <> wrote:
>>
>> > "Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> (Hint: my screen has a resolution of 1024x768, but the viewport I use to
>> >> browse in is 655x436.
>> >
>> > That means you can't see your own site:
>> > http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html
>>
>> So? 'Sinning' against a good principle doesn't make the principle less good.
>> It just means I'm a 'sinner'.
>
> It also tends to make both you and the principle seem less
> authoritative.

Well, I wasn't the one bringing that page up. I merely pointed to a Google SERP
on the subject, because over there the whys and do's and don'ts can be found.

> Why should a newbie think they have a decent chance of
> pulling off a truly fluid design

What is a truly fluid design? You mean no restrictions (max or min width) what
so ever?
Mine flows between a min and a max width. The max is there because I don't want
the lines with text to get too long in a wide viewport (or should I say: some of
my visitors like it better this way; at least this is what they asked for when
it wasn't there). The min is there because, hmm. I don't know. Because I
experimented with it. My site is always an ongoing experiment. At least, the
styles are.

> -- or think that it's even of value to
> do so -- if the person they look to for advice can't do it?
>

Well, 'can't'? It's not that I can't, although my pages don't show that at the
moment. It's something I didn't. Besides that: I didn't refer to my site. I
referred to a less involved party: Google. Through a search query I intended to
let others speak.

> Something is amiss. Maybe fluid design is not as easy as just saying
> "make your design fluid",
>

I agree if it involves more than (almost) pure text as content. If some
eleborate graphical content is prominently in the viewport and needs to be shown
in one explicite and exclusive way, well... That's a whole different world
alltogether. Probably best resolve to broadcasting it on TV in that case, or
print a book.

> in which case people having discouraged from
> it deserve a bit of sympathy.
>

No, not really. All depends on the whys, hows. I really believe that creating
liquid pages should be the goal, especially if text is the main content and
graphics are just there for decoration and looks. In experimenting I created a
design for my private homepage that is only partially fluid, mainly because some
users asked me to do so (at least the max width). It isn't said I agree with
this or that I'll stick to it.

I always get some responses to my site and to the design too, not just the
content. Not from here, but from actual visitors.
Before I had the response: The text is running too wide (in my full screen
>100px wide viewport, which never got mentioned). When I got that twice, I
responded by setting a max width. Since then I got no user complaints.

> Incidentally, that page has some real width problems when viewed in
> Safari:

Thanks for mentioning that. I'll look into it. You're probably right about that
search box. When I get some real complaints from real visitors that come there
for the content, I'll act on it too.

No, really. It's likely I will create some new look pretty soon (because I like
to do that every once in a while). Then this problem is (hopefully) resolved.
Also some new problems are likely to emerge with that new design. They always
do. Isn't life fun

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

Once upon a time *Michael Winter* wrote:

> On 17/08/2005 16:57, Arne wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time *Barbara de Zoete* wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> 1. It is nearly a 100kB whithout the external images that is. Just
>>> the text and markup. That is waaaaaayy too much, believe me. Anyone
>>> on dial-up could have told you so.
>
> As a dial-up user, I'd say that 100kB is fine, but that would be
> everything, including images. As it is, the site is exceeding 200kB. Of
> course, that's only if the document renders incrementally. Sitting
> there, seeing only the start of a header for thirty seconds isn't
> acceptable to me.
>
>> Where do you see those 100kB for text and markup? I see only 10,49kB
>> (10741 bytes) [...]
>
> Mozilla isn't reporting the size correctly. Copy the source code, save
> it, then look at the file size. It's 90kB.
>

You are absolutely right! Strange, not even the Web Page Analyzer
report correctly and Mozilla report the same size as WPA. What's
causing this?

--
/Arne
My "widget" site: http://hem.bredband.net/arnel/
Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you
are replying to, and don't quote signatures!

In article <>, lid
says...
> Once upon a time *Hywel Jenkins* wrote:
> >
> > It uses JS for image rollovers. I tried it with Firefox, JS-disabled,
> > and it seemed fine.
>
> Did you see any rollovers on the page?

Yup - left-hand side, under "Submenu".

--
Hywel
http://kibo.org.uk/

Michael Winter wrote:
> On 17/08/2005 16:57, Arne wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time *Barbara de Zoete* wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>> 1. It is nearly a 100kB whithout the external images that is. Just
>>> the text and markup. That is waaaaaayy too much, believe me. Anyone
>>> on dial-up could have told you so.
>
> As a dial-up user, I'd say that 100kB is fine, but that would be
> everything, including images. As it is, the site is exceeding 200kB. ...
>
>> Where do you see those 100kB for text and markup? I see only 10,49kB
>> (10741 bytes) [...]
>
> Mozilla isn't reporting the size correctly. Copy the source code, save
> it, then look at the file size. It's 90kB.

This should settle it, eh? <g>

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/

Global Statistics
Total HTTP Requests: 61
Total Size: 118613 bytes

Object Size Totals
Object type Size (bytes)
HTML: 10740
HTML Images: 107873
CSS Images: 0
Total Images: 107873

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.