New site, looking for critique on loading time

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Tina - AffordableHOST.com, Oct 23, 2003.

  1. So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more graphics
    (and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever been comfortable
    with in the past. I think the main page loads fast enough...but, I use
    cable internet. :p

    Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism on the
    general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be constructive...I
    just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think I would need therapy if
    the comments were too harsh! ;)

    http://www.AffordableHOST.com

    Thanks in advance!

    --Tina

    --
    http://www.AffordableHOST.com
    LiveChat: http://chat.affordablehost.com
    20% Discount Code: newsgroup
    Serving the web since 1997
     
    Tina - AffordableHOST.com, Oct 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    rf Guest

    "Tina - AffordableHOST.com" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > So, I've updated our site yet again.


    > http://www.AffordableHOST.com


    > Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism on

    the
    > general look of the site would be appreciated.


    Why should I bother.

    Last time you had this site here we had a discussion about using pictures of
    text instead of the real text. I see that the most important bits of your
    front page, that is the plans and the prices for those plans, are *still*
    pictures of text, and a slightly blurry jpegs at that. Here is what that
    page looks in Lynx:

    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/ah.gif

    Are you *intentionally* discriminating against the how many millions of
    blind/partially sighted people out there who may require cheap hosting? That
    is important information, probably the most important information on your
    site. If it is not accessable then that viewer will instantly go elsewhere.

    As a side issue, when I adjust my IE font size up a bit (because you (like
    that bloke I had a swipe at over at alt.html.critique) have specified
    font-size: 11px) I find that only about half the text is stuck at that size.
    The other half gets bigger and smaller, not nice.

    Of course using Mozilla I can adjust the font exactly to my liking, *except
    for your pricing*.

    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Oct 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    DU Guest

    Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:

    > So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more graphics
    > (and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever been comfortable
    > with in the past. I think the main page loads fast enough...but, I use
    > cable internet. :p
    >
    > Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism on the
    > general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be constructive...I
    > just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think I would need therapy if
    > the comments were too harsh! ;)
    >
    > http://www.AffordableHOST.com
    >
    > Thanks in advance!
    >
    > --Tina
    >


    Your website design is highly questionable and highly debatable.
    "Skize Media created our new look and Lake Superior Web Design polished
    the html and layout." Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design are
    obviously incompetent.

    The page is invalid: it does not even have a doctype declaration which
    is mandatory. The page uses deprecated elements (<center>,<font>), is
    widely based on table design, uses absolute length units for font, uses
    mindlessly MacroMedia script functions, uses map and area for no
    justifiable reasons, use of 5 target="_blank" is not relevant and
    definitively not justified, etc..
    The list of keywords has redundances. The concern for accessibility in
    that page is pretty weak.

    Even your Client testimonials are not credible. I clicked all 4 links
    and all I could ever read was this: "As of 10-22-2001, our hosting
    services have been bought out by AffordableHOST.com. Please goto their
    site for more information on web hosting services."

    For a web host, your site does not promote in any way the kind of
    quality and excellence you pretend to offer. I could do better than both
    Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design in less than 2 days.

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
     
    DU, Oct 23, 2003
    #3
  4. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    Eric Bohlman Guest

    "Tina - AffordableHOST.com" <> wrote in
    news::

    > So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more
    > graphics (and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever
    > been comfortable with in the past. I think the main page loads fast
    > enough...but, I use cable internet. :p
    >
    > Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism
    > on the general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be
    > constructive...I just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think
    > I would need therapy if the comments were too harsh! ;)
    >
    > http://www.AffordableHOST.com


    Full load time for the whole thing was about 25 seconds; everything
    important other than the "cpanel" images became visible after about 5
    seconds. So I think you're doing just fine in that department.

    Your title looks like a keyword list rather than a true title, giving it a
    kind of "spammy" feel.

    Your layout requires horizontal scrolling for window widths of less than
    750 pixels, though it reflows properly in wider windows. A search on
    "liquid design" should give you some pointers on how to overcome this.

    Do you have a hover effect on your menubar? If so, it's a little too
    subtle.
     
    Eric Bohlman, Oct 23, 2003
    #4
  5. "Eric Bohlman" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns941CDFF125A54ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
    > "Tina - AffordableHOST.com" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more
    > > graphics (and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever
    > > been comfortable with in the past. I think the main page loads fast
    > > enough...but, I use cable internet. :p
    > >
    > > Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism
    > > on the general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be
    > > constructive...I just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think
    > > I would need therapy if the comments were too harsh! ;)
    > >
    > > http://www.AffordableHOST.com

    >
    > Full load time for the whole thing was about 25 seconds; everything
    > important other than the "cpanel" images became visible after about 5
    > seconds. So I think you're doing just fine in that department.
    >
    > Your title looks like a keyword list rather than a true title, giving it a
    > kind of "spammy" feel.
    >
    > Your layout requires horizontal scrolling for window widths of less than
    > 750 pixels, though it reflows properly in wider windows. A search on
    > "liquid design" should give you some pointers on how to overcome this.
    >
    > Do you have a hover effect on your menubar? If so, it's a little too
    > subtle.



    Thank you, Eric! I had hoped for faster than 25 seconds load time...but I
    guess, based on your comments, its still acceptable. I will see if we can
    optimize the images better...or something.

    Yes, there is a hover effect on the menu buttons. I'm not really wanting it
    to jump out and grab you. I'll play around with that a bit though.

    I had tested the pages at 600 x 800 resolution and they didn't scroll. Am I
    missing something???

    --Tina

    --
    http://www.AffordableHOST.com
    LiveChat: http://chat.affordablehost.com
    20% Discount Code: newsgroup
    Serving the web since 1997
     
    Tina - AffordableHOST.com, Oct 23, 2003
    #5
  6. "DU" <> wrote in message
    news:bn7f4b$gkp$...
    > Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:
    >
    > > So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more graphics
    > > (and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever been

    comfortable
    > > with in the past. I think the main page loads fast enough...but, I use
    > > cable internet. :p
    > >
    > > Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism on

    the
    > > general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be

    constructive...I
    > > just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think I would need

    therapy if
    > > the comments were too harsh! ;)
    > >
    > > http://www.AffordableHOST.com
    > >
    > > Thanks in advance!
    > >
    > > --Tina
    > >

    >
    > Your website design is highly questionable and highly debatable.
    > "Skize Media created our new look and Lake Superior Web Design polished
    > the html and layout." Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design are
    > obviously incompetent.
    >
    > The page is invalid: it does not even have a doctype declaration which
    > is mandatory. The page uses deprecated elements (<center>,<font>), is
    > widely based on table design, uses absolute length units for font, uses
    > mindlessly MacroMedia script functions, uses map and area for no
    > justifiable reasons, use of 5 target="_blank" is not relevant and
    > definitively not justified, etc..
    > The list of keywords has redundances. The concern for accessibility in
    > that page is pretty weak.
    >
    > Even your Client testimonials are not credible. I clicked all 4 links
    > and all I could ever read was this: "As of 10-22-2001, our hosting
    > services have been bought out by AffordableHOST.com. Please goto their
    > site for more information on web hosting services."
    >
    > For a web host, your site does not promote in any way the kind of
    > quality and excellence you pretend to offer. I could do better than both
    > Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design in less than 2 days.



    I appreciate you taking the time to peek at the site. I was actually just
    asking about the load time and general layout. I'm aware that it doesn't
    completely validate - and I'm willing to live with that (which is why I only
    asked about load time and layout only).

    The rest of your comments were a bit mean spirited. Off to therapy I go, I
    guess! ;-)

    --Tina
     
    Tina - AffordableHOST.com, Oct 23, 2003
    #6
  7. William Tasso, Oct 23, 2003
    #7
  8. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    Barefoot Kid Guest

    | I could do better than both
    | Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design in less than 2 days.
    |
    | DU
    | --
    | Javascript and Browser bugs:
    | http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    | - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    | - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    | http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html

    judging from the sites in ur sig i very much doubt it...
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Hung Diep
    New Media Designer
    www.intro-spect.co.uk
    0795 6576 319
     
    Barefoot Kid, Oct 23, 2003
    #8
  9. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    DU Guest

    Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:
    > "DU" <> wrote in message
    > news:bn7f4b$gkp$...
    >
    >>Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more graphics
    >>>(and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever been

    >
    > comfortable
    >
    >>>with in the past. I think the main page loads fast enough...but, I use
    >>>cable internet. :p
    >>>
    >>>Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism on

    >
    > the
    >
    >>>general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be

    >
    > constructive...I
    >
    >>>just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think I would need

    >
    > therapy if
    >
    >>>the comments were too harsh! ;)
    >>>
    >>>http://www.AffordableHOST.com
    >>>
    >>>Thanks in advance!
    >>>
    >>>--Tina
    >>>

    >>
    >>Your website design is highly questionable and highly debatable.
    >>"Skize Media created our new look and Lake Superior Web Design polished
    >>the html and layout." Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design are
    >>obviously incompetent.
    >>
    >>The page is invalid: it does not even have a doctype declaration which
    >>is mandatory. The page uses deprecated elements (<center>,<font>), is
    >>widely based on table design, uses absolute length units for font, uses
    >>mindlessly MacroMedia script functions, uses map and area for no
    >>justifiable reasons, use of 5 target="_blank" is not relevant and
    >>definitively not justified, etc..
    >>The list of keywords has redundances. The concern for accessibility in
    >>that page is pretty weak.
    >>
    >>Even your Client testimonials are not credible. I clicked all 4 links
    >>and all I could ever read was this: "As of 10-22-2001, our hosting
    >>services have been bought out by AffordableHOST.com. Please goto their
    >>site for more information on web hosting services."
    >>
    >>For a web host, your site does not promote in any way the kind of
    >>quality and excellence you pretend to offer. I could do better than both
    >>Skize Media and Lake Superior Web Design in less than 2 days.

    >
    >
    >
    > I appreciate you taking the time to peek at the site. I was actually just
    > asking about the load time and general layout.


    Then here's more.
    - Many words are colored with the same color for links: so, as a
    visitor, I can not quickly and visually figure out what are the links.
    Not a big thing but if you are sensitive to small details with usability
    consequences, then that's one.
    - No margin on the page. So, the left side of the content starts at left
    pixel 0. There is no printed document anywhere (newspaper, book,
    magazines, etc..) in all cultures, in all societies, throughout history
    which used no margin at all on a printed document. And removing margin
    and padding on the body element was intentional, deliberate not an
    accidental oversight or something
    - Like someone else said, your title is spam-like. What's wrong with the
    simple straightforward "Affordable Host, inc" as a title?
    - Use pictures for real pictures; don't use pictures for text... unless
    you want to reduce the accesibility of your site and to increase
    download time deliberately
    - use map and areas when it is justified and proper to do so

    I came to your website for the first time yesterday. The word CPanel is
    used at 6 spots. I have no idea what CPanel means or what it refers to
    exactly. And I'm visiting the topmost page of your site.

    I'm aware that it doesn't
    > completely validate - and I'm willing to live with that (which is why I only
    > asked about load time and layout only).
    >


    The top nr 1 and very first reason to validate is speed (webpage
    rendering performance): I've said so before in this newsgroup. Right
    now, above 70% of all users out there are using W3C web standards
    compliant browsers which are geared and tuned to support W3C web
    standards. As soon as you deliberately and intentionally use code that
    will trigger backward compatible rendering mode in these browsers, then
    you are choosing an inferior rendering mode which brings all kinds of
    difficulties for users as well as webpage designers:
    - inconsistent layout by browsers: If you can't test your documents in
    all browsers (browser versions and other web-aware applications)
    available out there, then validating your HTML is the best mean to make
    sure that your document has the best chance of being rendered without
    problems, by making sure your HTML doesn't have mistakes. Even MSDN
    recommends that!
    - longer parsing time due to malformed document tree or other problems
    - error-correcting mechanisms involved during parsing time; these
    mechanisms vary a lot from browser to browser, even from browser version
    to browser version
    - reduced accessibility
    - reduced interoperability in several areas
    - etc.

    A wide majority of valid HTML documents will be considerably smaller in
    size (by as much as 25% to 50%) because valid HTML documents often
    assume CSS implementation where style formatting and code reusability
    are best and optimal. Therefore download time should be smaller.

    Choosing table design (and nested tables) to structure a document is
    choosing an inferior design which is not best for parsing and rendering
    and I'm talking about speed and browser rendering performance here. It
    not only slows down the rendering, it makes the webpage more complex to
    figure out, to update, to modify. The webpage is not easy to maintain
    since its design was not based on code reusability, code evolutivity in
    the first place.

    Choosing table design for non-tabular data is as logical as using
    MS-Excel to write a document, to write an email.

    Choosing to ignore validation, choosing to put up with invalid documents
    is as much professional as writing without concerns for badly formed
    syntax, grammar errors, obvious spell-checking errors.

    > The rest of your comments were a bit mean spirited. Off to therapy I go, I
    > guess! ;-)
    >
    > --Tina
    >
    >


    What irritated me the most with your webpage is that you pompuously
    pretended that 2 companies worked on the html and layout when I really
    think they did a LOUSY job. You want to give your company a
    respectability and reputation regarding the quality and excellence of
    its work, services, employees, etc...? Then start with your website
    coding practices. One day, you might be able to calmly and confidently
    claim in your own company website that your whole business is focused on
    quality, excellence, accessibility, usability, wise and optimal use of
    technology and then people who know their own art will start to believe
    your own words by verifying that by themselves.

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
     
    DU, Oct 23, 2003
    #9
  10. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    JT Guest

    "rf" wrote:

    > Are you *intentionally* discriminating against the how many millions of
    > blind/partially sighted people out there who may require cheap hosting?


    I'm interested to know how would a blind person know what any designed web
    page looked like?
     
    JT, Oct 23, 2003
    #10
  11. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    JT Guest

    Tina wrote:

    > So, I've updated our site yet again. This time, there are more graphics
    > (and a tiny bit of Flash) on the main page than I've ever been comfortable
    > with in the past. I think the main page loads fast enough...but, I use
    > cable internet. :p
    >
    > Can those of you with dialup check? Also, any constructive critisism on

    the
    > general look of the site would be appreciated. Please be constructive...I
    > just spent countless hours tweaking this and I think I would need therapy

    if
    > the comments were too harsh! ;)
    >
    > http://www.AffordableHOST.com
    > Thanks in advance!
    > --Tina


    Your site loaded ok with my slow-mo dialup. The general look was pretty
    good and professional looking compared with the crappy text only pages many
    here would advise you to do.
     
    JT, Oct 23, 2003
    #11
  12. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    JT Guest

    Tina wrote:

    > I had tested the pages at 600 x 800 resolution and they didn't scroll. Am

    I
    > missing something???
    >
    > http://www.AffordableHOST.com


    I use IE 5.5 and always have it set at 800 x 600, and there is no horizontal
    scrolling.
     
    JT, Oct 23, 2003
    #12
  13. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    rf Guest

    "JT" <> wrote in message
    news:bn98t7$f2j$...
    > "rf" wrote:
    >
    > > Are you *intentionally* discriminating against the how many millions of
    > > blind/partially sighted people out there who may require cheap hosting?

    >
    > I'm interested to know how would a blind person know what any designed web
    > page looked like?


    Sigh...

    Blind people don't care what web pages "look" like. They listen to them,
    ususally with an aural browser. A blind person can not listen to a picture
    of text.

    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Oct 23, 2003
    #13
  14. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    JT Guest

    "rf" wrote
    > Blind people don't care what web pages "look" like. They listen to them,
    > ususally with an aural browser. A blind person can not listen to a picture
    > of text.


    Many thanks Richard, one lives and learns.

    To help further my learning curve:
    What would a blind person actually hear using an aurol browser if he went to
    this site http://www.w3schools.com

    Then what method is used to actually go to any of the links.
     
    JT, Oct 23, 2003
    #14
  15. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    rf Guest

    "JT" <> wrote in message
    news:bn9eqr$dsp$...
    > "rf" wrote
    > > Blind people don't care what web pages "look" like. They listen to them,
    > > ususally with an aural browser. A blind person can not listen to a

    picture
    > > of text.

    >
    > Many thanks Richard, one lives and learns.
    >
    > To help further my learning curve:
    > What would a blind person actually hear using an aurol browser if he went

    to
    > this site http://www.w3schools.com


    Dunno. Probably a bunch of links and a bunch of content. That site (despite
    its content) is not a very good one.

    If you really want to know what a page sounds like then download a copy of
    Lynx (google will tell you where it is). This text only browser will give
    you a reasonable indication of what an aural browser will say. Remember, if
    Lynx can't see it then a blind person cannot hear it and googlebot cannot
    index it.

    > Then what method is used to actually go to any of the links.


    Dunno. Depends on the browser. It wouldn't surprise me if these days some of
    them use speech recognition to listen politely to their users :)

    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Oct 23, 2003
    #15
  16. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    Isofarro Guest

    Isofarro, Oct 23, 2003
    #16
  17. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    DU Guest

    JT wrote:
    > "rf" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Are you *intentionally* discriminating against the how many millions of
    >>blind/partially sighted people out there who may require cheap hosting?

    >
    >
    > I'm interested to know how would a blind person know what any designed web
    > page looked like?
    >
    >
    >


    Try Simply Web 2000 (a free text-to-speech synthetizer).

    http://www.econointl.com/sw/

    There is also (free and downloadable) Sensus Internet Explorer 1.0 with
    a graphic and text mode; it's not as good, customizable, versatile as
    Simply Web 2000.

    Not too long ago, Brucie gave a list of available text-to-speech
    synthetizers. I tried them all and I think Simply Web 2000 was the best
    in that list.

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
     
    DU, Oct 24, 2003
    #17
  18. Tina - AffordableHOST.com

    jake Guest

    In message <bn9eqr$dsp$>, JT
    <> writes
    >"rf" wrote
    >> Blind people don't care what web pages "look" like. They listen to them,
    >> ususally with an aural browser. A blind person can not listen to a picture
    >> of text.

    >
    >Many thanks Richard, one lives and learns.
    >
    >To help further my learning curve:
    >What would a blind person actually hear using an aurol browser if he went to
    >this site http://www.w3schools.com
    >

    It sounds like this:
    http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/W3SX.txt

    (Normal text is spoken in a mature male voice, links in a mature female
    voice, headings in a robotic voice. -- my settings)


    >Then what method is used to actually go to any of the links.
    >

    Many ways:
    (1) Hit the 'return' key when you come across the link while the text is
    being read to you
    (2) Go into 'links reading mode' -- and hit 'return' when you hear the
    one you want
    (3) Ask for a 'list of links'. Then hit 'return' when you hear the one
    you want.
    (4) Others

    regards.
    --
    Jake
     
    jake, Oct 24, 2003
    #18
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. murmur

    site critique

    murmur, Oct 21, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    450
    kchayka
    Oct 22, 2003
  2. Long
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    383
  3. jstfrths

    Critique my New Site?

    jstfrths, Jan 11, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    360
    dorayme
    Jan 11, 2007
  4. Alan Woodland
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    348
  5. Looking for a critique

    , Feb 22, 2006, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    103
    Samwyse
    Feb 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page