That sounds right for pages that are primarily text, where the images
elements are decorateive elements, product id shots, etc. and
particularly in commercial venues. Where the true purpose IS the image,
the image has to contain enough information to be worth viewing. When I
run across a site of photos that are like big postage stamps, I think
"Nothing to see here." and move on.
I don't think your dial-up speed numbers 'add up'. I just used dial-up
to view a 256k image. Total time was under 17 sec from hitting return to
completion, with 5-6 sec. before the site started downloading the image.
Also, the site used progressive load, which should cost at least a sec
or 2. That works out to something in the neighborhood of 25kbps net
throughput. Dial-up from here is seldom better than 35-38kb, so someone
with a 48kb connections like Mike has tonight, should get a net of about
30. Are you perhaps off by about 10x? Am I missing something?
At 30kbps, a 100k image should take about 3-4 sec. to download, which
seems quite acceptable to me. That gives room for both reasonable size
and high quality jpegs.
Moose
Jan Steinman wrote:
Make your image smaller, and use less compression.
At an Adobe seminar I went to, they recommended keeping pages to under 60-90 k,
and keeping images to under 400 pixels wide.
Most dial-up lines do no better than 3 kB per second. So the above
recommendation will take 20-30 seconds to load, which is on the long side. I
strive for my pages to load in 10-15 seconds.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|