Page 1 of 1
[56K WARN] What Do You Think??
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:10 pm
by ericburnard
Hey just want to know what you think to my new website layout. I just want to know if it looks anygood before i start putting it all together, and replacing my old one.
http://madashatters.com/eric/gallery/ga ... /test1.jpg
Thanls
Eric
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:18 pm
by John Cartwright
Moved to UI Design/Usability
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:19 pm
by John Cartwright
56k Nightmare

Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:23 pm
by ericburnard
Jcart wrote:56k Nightmare

Yea thats the onlyproblem. How do other sites that have similar layouts get round it?
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:36 pm
by feyd
only thing I can see that'd minimize craziness is iframes, or maybe XMLHTTP stuffs... but it partly depends on how fluid you want to build it and things..
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:36 pm
by John Cartwright
When I design sites, I try to keep the images to ~5kb.. the rest is driven by CSS.
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:43 pm
by ericburnard
hmmmm okeys then. thanks for that. ill have a play around tomorow and try and put it onto a tite then i can try and keep loading speeds to a minimum

thanks :
Eric
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:57 pm
by feyd
although not similar in style, the following link is probably the most graphical site I've written to date. The pages probably average 300K if you count all things needed to make it look the way it does.. however, most of it was designed to allow for lazy loading of the images.. however, we did experience a lot of time requirements to download most pages, moving to a faster server and getting set up with low hops helped tremendously.
http://www.battlecorps.com
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:13 pm
by neophyte
Nice work Feyd.
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:01 pm
by feyd
neophyte wrote:Nice work Feyd.
thank you.

Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:05 pm
by imstupid
yeah, looks good feyd. can't imagine how long slicing all those graphics up accurately must have taken. I spent a lot of today measuring up templates for some bev.hills advertisers trying to figure out where I was off 3 pixels. Anyway, Eric- personally, I like to try and keep images under 30-40k max, but I've been catering to a different demographic lately- one that can afford the hi-speed connection. If you are in the same boat, you may want to splurge for the visual appeal, if that's what you are going for. If not, stick to jcart's advice and keep it user-friendly.
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:31 am
by ericburnard
Thanks for that. Kinda funkish

. I have it on the web now so its kinda sorted. im still going to have to make some of the images smaller so they page loads quicker as some images are 10 kb. just wanting to know how long it takes to load and what internet speed you are using so i can get it righe
Thanks
Eric
[Edit} oops forgot the link :p
http://www.madashatters.com/test1.html
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:42 am
by feyd
Firefox 1.0.6
Cable Modem: ~3.2Mbps download.
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:35 pm
by ericburnard
feyd wrote:
Firefox 1.0.6
Cable Modem: ~3.2Mbps download.
oh dear :s dosnt look to good there :s might have to download fire fox and make a version that will work with it :s im still using IE :p ah well thaks for that, will work on it tomorow
Thanks
Eric
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:43 pm
by John Cartwright