At 09:30 PM 12/1/2003 -0700, Iller Hulbert wrote:
>Big 'Ol background, loaded kinda slow for me and I'm on DSL.
>But other than that, it looks great and feels very familiar to the
>Skunkworks site, super easy to navigate once you get past the
>disclaimer deally lol. I'd remark that it looked like there's significant
>time invested into the various shots of the sexy mascot but that path
>turned very ugly last time and we should really avoid more flammage.
>Thanks for updating us of your hard work and staying busy Sir!
>-Ilr
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Oversized issue, both Data-wise and
Pixel-wise. The table that everything is being loaded into is 1070 pixels
wide, so won't fit on 1024x768, which is the largest average size. And the
full amount of graphical data is around 440K, which will take around a
minute and a half to load on dialup. That's a long time respectively. Plus,
with rowspan and columnspan, the image could have undergone less breakups,
thus reducing the http overhead and load on the server.
Unfortunately, it appears to be a case of sacrificing efficiency for
look. LOOKS beautiful, but loads darn slow.
One possible fix would be to get the "Blank.gif" to actually work, use a
single, better-compressed image as the background of the whole table, and
use an expanded 1x1 or 2x2 blank.gif for the actual links within the table
and over the background image. In testing, I was able to reduce the
current image to around 200K for such a purpose with no notable decrease in
visual quality, which would reduce the load time for the page by half, as
well as reduce the server requests and affiliated overhead down to three
(Currently, there are over 50 unique server requests to load the page).
I figure, the page is beautiful. But that doesn't help if nobody sticks
around for 90 seconds to wait for it to load. :(
Received on Tue Dec 02 2003 - 16:32:10 CST