I was wondering how long it takes to load my new webpage on dialup in the US, so the first person to tell me how fast there connection is and how long it took to completely load each of these 2 pages gets 5 frih$.
www.coolclay.info/fossil.html
www.coolclay.info/sites.html
Just tell me how fast your connection was, and the time it took for page 1 and the time it took for page 2.
Thanks Oh and I'll throw in some extra frih$ if you tell me what you think of the site so far, and maybe some tips to make it better. Not all the links work yet.
The pages loaded quite slowly - I think it's because you're loading the full pictures in the preview window, you've just shrunk them in size. I'd recommend that you make up a bunch of much smaller, much more highly-compressed jpeg files for the previews, then people will only have to wait to load the full images if they want to see them.
Your background image is quite big (memory wise) too - you might want to experiment with different levels of compression for a size/appearance trade-off.
Other than that, the site's quite good. It's a nice, simple design and I wouldn't say it was difficult to read anything. Large text sizes make it accessible to people with vision dificulties too, so it's good. If you wanted to make it a bit more advanced, you could try using a WYSIWYG editor (a free one's available from http://www.freeserifsoftware.com, but there are many others. Nvu is well worth a look too)
So that's all I'd say. Think about who it's aimed at - is it tech-savvy internet users, or more likely to be less experienced users and design your site around that. Currently, it's very clear and simple, but if you wanted it to look a bit more professional, try adding some more (compressed) graphics, a different font, and a more defined layout.
And forget about the frih$ - this is a freebie. Happy web building! Well I made them smaller so they should load a lot faster but now some of them are pixelized, personally I'd rather a slow speed over pixelated images, what do you'all think?
The background image is compressed at the lowest possible quality that photoshop offers, so there ain't much I can do about that.
Thanks for the tips animal, I have used WYSIWYG editors in the past but I never liked them, and I'd rather do it the old fashion way and type it in html anyway
| coolclay wrote: |
| Well I made them smaller so they should load a lot faster but now some of them are pixelized, personally I'd rather a slow speed over pixelated images, what do you'all think? |
Yeah - it's a balance between speed and appearance. I think some of the preview photos are ok, but others (like the one on the left) just look pretty bad. In fact, it's quite difficult to tell what it is, so you should maybe try somewhere in between the two settings.
As far as web design goes, you need to decide whether to employ a fully featured website that will take ages to load on dial-up, or go for a more modem-friendly option. The majority of major internet users have broadband these days, so a few extra loading seconds isn't something I would be overly concerned about.it even take a few sec on DSL!
your webpage is VERY simple for now. i recommend going to w3school to learn more about HTML, CSS, and try out all the examples, they help a lot for me
not too shabby, but of course, for every perons who uses big font for people who are blindish, there's someone else who just wants to fill up space,
this is a freebie too, a nice idea might be to put them as 1 image, and then to use an image map, just a thought, you could also just get a smaller image, of a single shell, for your background, one with uniform edges, so it blends together well
you should put in a forum and talk about fossils
*freebee*
Well first thanks everyone for the tips. I made some of the pictures a little bigger so they weren't all pixelated, and I changed the background, I also made the text a bit smaller.
So if someone with dialup still wants to time my website and get 5 frih$ go ahead.
Kyle- I already have a fossil forum www.coolclay.info/fossilforum/ ok, l recorded 21 seconds for the fossils page, and only 17 for the other one. l am on dial up in the US on a windows XP home Fire Fox as my browser and AOL as my ISP.
Hope it helped.
I have dial-up, and it took me 42Sec in order to load the page fossil.
24sec for the other one.( although i think that some of the pictures were already in cache or something like that.
I am not the one that can judge a web-page
hope that i helped
I have cable, it load for about 1 sec for me. I just think the background need to be change a little
Yeah, I think your site's pretty dang cool. I'd go with image quality over compression because dial-up users (I was one until just recently) are used to pages taking several minutes to load.
