Brian, I dislike Flash too, but for different reasons--security holes, crashing
browsers etc. However, I do understand why many photographers and other content
providers use it--it makes it much harder to steal images and allows for slick
presentations.
As for access speeds, I am afraid that in this day and age you cannot expect
web designers to limit themselves by making their sites suitable for dial-up
users. These days it is very unusual to access the net at such a slow speed.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
YNWA
On Jun 12, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> A few days ago when Jez invited us to look at
> http://www.nothere.be I clicked onto it and was amazed at how slow it is to
> load. Because it uses Flash.
> I don't understand why people use Flash programming.
>
> I'm on dialup, and my new house has a connection speed at the time of
> these checks of about 33.6 kbps.
> "Broadband" as supplied here is not on fibre-optic cable, but copper cable,
> and for the extra cost one might get anything from 20 to 100 kbps. Not
> worth paying for.
>
> So I decided to run a few checks.
> www.nothere.be took 6 minutes 15 seconds for the first image to appear,
> and
> 25 minutes 10 seconds (4,750.706 bytes) for the first 14 out of ?96 to
> appear. I spent no more time there.
>
> At about the same time Chris Barker invited us to inspect his flower shots.
> Another site using Flash ...
> http://mobile.me/
> 6 minutes 15 seconds until the first image appeared at 650,000 bytes
> at 9 minutes 57 seconds they had all showed up at 2,127,056 bytes.
>
> In contrast my"commercial" site (brianswale.com) which uses only html
> loaded the front page in 3 minutes 23 (706,000 bytes)
> and the next step, the gallery page with lots of thumbnails, in a further 2
> minutes. About five and a half minutes for a lot more graphic content.
>
> One of the Zuiko Solstice sites that I host
> http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/solstice/2004/2004.htm now 6 years
> old with an image on the initial main page and 31 thumbnails
> took 6 minutes to load them all - 1.3 MB data
>
> Incidentally, the quality of those images is amazingly good by todays digital
> standards.
>
> For people on fibre-optic broadband, these differences are probably trivial;
> I
> can't tell. But for me they may make the difference between me looking, or
> not looking.
>
> Brian Swale.
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|