Page check

D

dorayme

Ed Mullen said:
I'm not as didactic about this as some. For me, it's all about the
content. If I'm interested, sure, I'll sit there for ten seconds.

You are not *didactic* about it! What do you have in mind? That
there are those who are and those who are not? That those who
are, are the ones who explain in detail and in very clear simple
terms to others whytf they are pissed off by slow loading pages?

I enjoy the naked ladies but I still can't figure out "why."


Test yourself, get boji to send you a picture of his naked body
and see if you can gain any insight into your reactions to nudity.

BTW, personally, I have no problem with a big page that takes awhile to
load. As long as I know in advance and have some warning.


So that you can avoid it if you need to or not if you don't need
to but are keen to see it all or not and so on. What an easy
going guy you are!
 
N

Neredbojias

My connection speed varies. It's advertised as broadband, but I
sometimes only get 700-800Kbps out of it. :-(

Yeah, that's pretty slow, dsl-speed rate, I'd say. If you're supposed
to be getting 4 Mbps or even 1.2 Mbps, I'd bitch.
Not really. I could try it on my 11 year old G4, if you'd like to see
how it performs on a slow machine. :)

The resize routine is javascript and not very complicated. Of course,
there are a lot of images and it's speed depends on the system's
speed/architecture/etc., as well as the j/s of the browser. I'm on a
mid-level i5 with Win7 and Chrome does it in about 1 second. Firefox
is 3-4 secs. Maybe XP is quite a bit slower, I dunno.
 
N

Neredbojias

There must be _some_ useful way to organize them into groups - by
year, by theme, whatever. The artist might have an opinion on this.


Because of the way the human mind works. Too many images is just too
much. You want to get an idea of the available images, and a dozen,
or half a dozen, well-selected images should give that. Then, if
there is still interest, one might want to look at more images, say a
dozen at a time, or maybe twenty, then proceed to the next bunch.
That's how people normally present images - or, actually, we often
present them in a linear manner, one at a time, as in a slide show.
Thumnails are often a good idea, but too many thumbnails is just too
much.

What you describe is a typical gallery-page site, and that's fine but
after a while they get to be boring. The Internet (-and everything)
must progress so I offer a new alternate to page-after-staid-page of
redoubtable thumbnails. If someone is searching for a particular
image, it's more efficient to look on a single page with many pics
rather than several pages with few. Also, one can scan-and-scroll to
get a more comprehensive view of the artist's style than would be
rendered by a single "representative" page. If certain people of the
past hadn't taken that fresh, daring step, we'd still have horses,
outhouses, and braless women as the primary available means for doing
what they respectively do. I wish to reach out, to "boldly go where no
man has gone before", and in the process, new and better means for
utilizing The Web will arise!
That's something to be ashamed of, not proud. The page completely
fails to work, with the silly text "Javascript required". (Required
for what? If I have Javascript turned off, then I, or whoever turned
it off, must be assumed to have a good reason. It is foolish to
expect me to turn Javascript on just because some page says
"Javascript required", without giving the slightest hint of the
content or functionality that might become available.

The choice is between a 7k page with j/s or a 50-60k page (or more)
without. AFAIC, paranoid people can go elsewhere. However, your point
about "preliminary information" is worthy.
The sensible approach is to include, say, a dozen images in the
normal way on the first page and maybe, just maybe, some Javascript
code that pre-loads the other images to browser cache while the user
is looking at the first bunch.

Sensible, yes. Optimal, no. The technology is here; let's use it to
the fullest.
 
N

Neredbojias

I'm not as didactic about this as some. For me, it's all about the
content. If I'm interested, sure, I'll sit there for ten seconds.

One comment, when I click on a resize link I get no indication that
something is happening in the background. I actually clicked the
resize link three times, not realizing "Opps! Give it some time,
Doofuss!"

There's a red indicator line above the number which moves to the number
clicked (text-align:eek:verline). Of course, if you click the same number
it's on, there's no visual reaction. So maybe I'll put in an "active"
or similar. Also, the red line may be too close to the top for some to
see.
But, then, you really haven't told us what you're page's purpose is,
nor what your're trying to achieve, eh?

If it is a totally private page with caveats to the private users?
Well, ok. As a tester? I'm kinda in the dark.

I've been asked about "purpose" before, and _I_ don't get it. The
galleries are just galleries; if you want a larger picture shown by a
thumb, click it, appraise it, and save it for your own if you like it.
Otherwise, move on. The film trailers pages have a self-evident
purpose, no? Just about all my pages are graphics-oriented because I
like to look at things and so does everyone although the "things" may
differ.
Even so, if I'm interested enough? Yeah, sure, I'll wait ten
seconds. I'm not (yet) so jaded that I can't wait that long. But I'm
arguably "old" ... just turned 60 ... so, well, "time" is of some
importance to me.

And I still haven't figured out what you or your sites are all about.

I enjoy the naked ladies but I still can't figure out "why."

What naked ladies? The adult mega-site is long gone.
Email me the access to your "other" domains and I'm happy to evaluate
them for you.

I have no private domains; all are public. There's a SMALL independent
adult sub at http://adult.neredbojias.org/ which I update about weekly
just for the ubiquitous pleasure of playing with the pixels and that's
it.
BTW, personally, I have no problem with a big page that takes awhile
to load. As long as I know in advance and have some warning.

Yeah, Jukka made that point, too. I'll work on it.
 
N

Neredbojias

BTW, I have both disk and memory caches disabled in my config. I
figure 12 mgps should be enough. And I just don't like sw storing
shit on my system.

And, no, I'm not paranoid. I know they're out to get me!

<g> I don't go that far but sometime near 20 years ago I was the first
I know of to re-assign all my caches to a ramdisk which "evaporated"
on shut down.
 
P

P E Schoen

"Neredbojias" wrote in message

I have this page with many thumbnail images. However, the page is less
than 7k. It takes about 4 seconds to load on my setup. Would some
kind souls out thare check it for load time because I'm trying to get
an idea of the general or average time involved for all bandwidths.
Also, you can try the resize (thumbs) app to see how fast that is.
Thanks much.

http://www.neredbojias.net/roy.php

<Yea! -I remembered to include the url.)

=====================================================================

20 seconds on FIOS and a Win7 Toshiba C655 machine with IE8 on a wireless
router
7-8 seconds for resize.
54 Mbps

Paul
 
P

P E Schoen

"DLU" wrote in message
I have this page with many thumbnail images. However, the page is less
than 7k. It takes about 4 seconds to load on my setup. Would some
kind souls out thare check it for load time because I'm trying to get
an idea of the general or average time involved for all bandwidths.
Also, you can try the resize (thumbs) app to see how fast that is.
Thanks much.

http://www.neredbojias.net/roy.php

<Yea! -I remembered to include the url.)
Took me all of about seven seconds to load the complete page and I get
142kbps download.

===========================================================

You also ripped a hole in the space-time continuum. Your post boosted the
thread to the top in my Windows Live newsreader because it's post date is
about 6 weeks in the future. 12/27/2010

Paul
 
D

DLU

I have this page with many thumbnail images. However, the page is less
than 7k. It takes about 4 seconds to load on my setup. Would some
kind souls out thare check it for load time because I'm trying to get
an idea of the general or average time involved for all bandwidths.
Also, you can try the resize (thumbs) app to see how fast that is.
Thanks much.

http://www.neredbojias.net/roy.php

<Yea! -I remembered to include the url.)
Took me all of about seven seconds to load the complete page and I get
142kbps download.

--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,077
Messages
2,570,567
Members
47,203
Latest member
EmmaSwank1

Latest Threads

Top