Site Structure Question

[Benny N.]

What is considered the max no. of bytes per page now? I'm asking because
most of the pages I build are in the 40kb to 80kb range and I once had a
boss that wouldn't even allow any of us to publish a SITE that had a PAGE
over 40kb. I know a browser builds a site from the top down but what gets
downloaded fiirst? I used to think: first html, then graphics, then
JavaScript but I'm not sure. What's considered a min/max file size
nowadays?

Also, how do the various browsers interperet .css from a size standpoint? If
I have a .css file of 20kb, do the browsers apportion the 20kb over the
site, the page or how? I moved to broadband about two years ago and I think
I may have lost touch with dial up users. Thanks.

 

[Steve R.]

Benny N.wrote in message ...

I once had a boss that wouldn't even allow any of us
to publish a SITE that had a PAGE over 40kb.

Sounds like he was a considerate, sensible boss who had the end-user in
mind, especially the majority of folks still on dial-ups.

 

[Benny N.]

Pretty decent guy, but what about my questions?

Benny N.wrote in message ...

Sounds like he was a considerate, sensible boss who had the end-user in
mind, especially the majority of folks still on dial-ups.

 

[West]

What is considered the max no. of bytes per page now? I'm asking because
most of the pages I build are in the 40kb to 80kb range and I once had a
boss that wouldn't even allow any of us to publish a SITE that had a PAGE
over 40kb. I know a browser builds a site from the top down but what gets
downloaded fiirst? I used to think: first html, then graphics, then
JavaScript but I'm not sure. What's considered a min/max file size
nowadays?

Also, how do the various browsers interperet .css from a size standpoint? If
I have a .css file of 20kb, do the browsers apportion the 20kb over the
site, the page or how? I moved to broadband about two years ago and I think
I may have lost touch with dial up users. Thanks.

the 40-80kb range is still valid ...not only for dial-up users, but also
because to keep pages that small a developer is required to learn some of
the basics of how to properly produce better images for the net.

 

[m]

What is considered the max no. of bytes per page now? I'm asking because
most of the pages I build are in the 40kb to 80kb range and I once had a
boss that wouldn't even allow any of us to publish a SITE that had a PAGE
over 40kb. I know a browser builds a site from the top down but what gets
downloaded fiirst? I used to think: first html, then graphics, then
JavaScript but I'm not sure. What's considered a min/max file size
nowadays?

There is no way I would wait for a 40K page to load unless I had
some important business with the site and _had_ to put up with it.
8-14K, including linked files, is more reasonable for a page.

Also, how do the various browsers interperet .css from a size standpoint?
If I have a .css file of 20kb, do the browsers apportion the 20kb over the
site, the page or how?

The first load of a .css file gets cached by most browsers.
You would think you should use the number of seconds a page takes to
display instead of the absolute size. But remember that a visitor
may have bookmarked the page and want to come to it directly, and that
many people don't allow their caches to build up over time.

I moved to broadband about two years ago and I
think I may have lost touch with dial up users. Thanks.

Thanks for caring. We will not rise from our graves to
come after you.

 

[m]

There is no way I would wait for a 40K page to load unless I had
some important business with the site and _had_ to put up with it.
8-14K, including linked files, is more reasonable for a page.

I should have added -- excluding non-essential images. As long
as you pre-size these they shouldn't count in most browsers.

 

[Benny N.]

Thanks. I optomize all my images and therefore rarely have one over 5kb on a
page. It's all the other things (JavaScript, dhtml, CSS) I worry about and
why I asked.

 

[Whitecrest]

There is no way I would wait for a 40K page to load unless I had
some important business with the site and _had_ to put up with it.
8-14K, including linked files, is more reasonable for a page.

Do you think there is ever going to be a time when your (generic your,
not you personally) Web will have more than text and a few small images?
You know, More power to you, I am glad you enjoy it, but unless I was
looking up plain facts, pages like that would bore the hell out of me.
To me (and millions like me), the more crap the better!

We obviously use the web for different reasons, neither of which is
wrong.

 

[Steve R.]

Whitecrest wrote in message ...

Do you think there is ever going to be a time when your (generic your,
not you personally) Web will have more than text and a few small images?

There are plenty of websites with lots of text and lots of images, *yours*
included, but the OP is talking PER PAGE, not the whole website.

If you do have an image that need to open up large, (say over 40K), that's
fine, as long as you give an indication of the file size when you supply
the link :~)

 

[m]

Whitecrest wrote in message ...

There are plenty of websites with lots of text and lots of images, *yours*
included, but the OP is talking PER PAGE, not the whole website.

If you do have an image that need to open up large, (say over 40K), that's
fine, as long as you give an indication of the file size when you supply
the link :~)

Yes, I have to agree with this. Just take the time to thumbnail large
images properly. The key is a proper tree structure. You don't have
to throw everything onto a single page.

 

[Lauri Raittila]

What is considered the max no. of bytes per page now? I'm asking because
most of the pages I build are in the 40kb to 80kb range and I once had a
boss that wouldn't even allow any of us to publish a SITE that had a PAGE
over 40kb. I know a browser builds a site from the top down but what gets
downloaded fiirst? I used to think: first html, then graphics, then
JavaScript but I'm not sure. What's considered a min/max file size
nowadays?

40kb is big, unless it has content that needs bytes (like relevant
images). If you make that big site, make sure that first part of it is
rendered when 10kb or less is downloaded. Browsers usually download
everything as soon as they find where it is.

Sometimes it makes sence to have 100 100kb jpgs on one page, but that
should really be just another option for us that have thick broadbands
and lousy pings..

Also, how do the various browsers interperet .css from a size standpoint? If
I have a .css file of 20kb, do the browsers apportion the 20kb over the
site, the page or how? I moved to broadband about two years ago and I think
I may have lost touch with dial up users. Thanks.

CSS is cached. So it is only loaded once. But 20kb is so big that it may
cause FOUC. If you can break it to pieces in some sencible way, that is
good thing to do. But if there is no way to do that, I think it is OK to
have 20kb stylesheet. But then make HTML of homepage lean.

 

[brucie]

in post: <

What is considered the max no. of bytes per page now?

obviously it depends on what the page is but 30-40k is nice

I once had a boss that wouldn't even allow any of us to publish a SITE
that had a PAGE over 40kb.

i wish there were more like him/her

I know a browser builds a site from the top down but what gets
downloaded fiirst? I used to think: first html, then graphics, then
JavaScript but I'm not sure.

the html is always first, without it the browser doesn't know what to
download. after the html it depends. just keep an eye on the browsers
headers. its usually in sequence with the goodies appearing in the
markup

I have a .css file of 20kb

that is a massive size for a css file. go through it and delete all the
unnecessary stuff, i bet you have a lot.

, do the browsers apportion the 20kb over the site, the page or how?

css files are usually cached by the browser so they only need to be
downloaded once.

I moved to broadband about two years ago

broadband users usually get it to increase their speed, not so site
authors can send them more shit and slow them back down again.

and I think I may have lost touch with dial up users.

i live in a remote area and the best i can do is 28.8k, most of the time
its 14.4k.

 

[Whitecrest]

Yes, I have to agree with this. Just take the time to thumbnail large
images properly. The key is a proper tree structure. You don't have
to throw everything onto a single page.

See this is where personal choice comes in. I find pages with 40K
limitations are generally boring to me (generally means there at times
there will be exceptions, but the general rule is I don't like them, and
don't frequent them.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

What is considered the max no. of bytes per page now?

IMHO 30KB is about the limit. Allowing for average congestion and an
instant messaging application open, this will take about 10s on a standard
dialup account. Any longer than that and you'll lose them.

 

[rf]

What is considered the max no. of bytes per page now? I'm asking because
most of the pages I build are in the 40kb to 80kb range

That seems reasonable. Half a megabyte is *not* reasonable.

http://webpagesthatsuck.com recommends 47K as the limit. I don't exactly
remember why, something to do with the speed of modems at that time and the
attention span of the visitor.

I know a browser builds a site from the top down

I think you mean page, not site.

but what gets downloaded fiirst?

The HTML of course. That is what you point your browser at.

I used to think: first html, then graphics, then
JavaScript but I'm not sure.

The HTML page (including any javascript and CSS in that page), in its
entirety, as one HTTP request, followed by anything that is linked, external
javascript files, external CSS files and images, in the order they are found
in the HTML file. Well, the HTTP requests go out in that order. Whether of
not those requests are satisfied in that order is up to vagaries of the
internet. Note, there is a separate HTTP request for *each* image. So if you
have a thousand small images there will be a thousand HTTP requests. This
would make things slow, even though the total number of bytes 'on the page'
may be small.

What's considered a min/max file size

nowadays?

Whatever, as long as your visitor does not lose patience and go elsewhere.
About as long as that peice of string over there --->

Also, how do the various browsers interperet .css from a size standpoint? If
I have a .css file of 20kb, do the browsers apportion the 20kb over the
site, the page or how?

Er, what? If a CSS file is linked to from a page then that CSS file gets
downloaded when the page is downloaded. There is no 'apportioning'. However,
if subsequent pages use the same CSS file than (hopefully) it will be
retrieved from the browsers cache, just like images and external javascript
files.

I moved to broadband about two years ago and I think
I may have lost touch with dial up users. Thanks.

There are plenty of them here. Mention your site and they will tell you if
it loads too slowly, often with embelishments

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Eric Bohlman]

Thanks. I optomize all my images and therefore rarely have one over
5kb on a page. It's all the other things (JavaScript, dhtml, CSS) I
worry about and why I asked.

Those are much less of a concern because they're delivered as pure text,
which compresses quite well for dial-up users (the compression is actually
built into the modems). Images and multimedia content, OTOH, are generally
already compressed and thus don't compress any further. You can probably
safely assume that text will transfer at least twice as fast as image data.

The main thing you have to watch out for with external inclusions like
scripts and stylesheets is request latency. If you're pulling in several
external stylesheets and several external scripts, the browser will have to
make a separate request for each one (at least the first time it encounters
them). Modern browsers will do this over a persistent connection, which
will reduce latency somewhat but can't do anything about servers that are
slow to respond.

 

[Andy Dingley]

What is considered the max no. of bytes per page now?

Overall page ? Same as ever. Although many people have broadband now,
there are still plenty on slow dial-up.

HTML page ? Shouldn't matter. The size of the layed-out page is an
issue for usability, and any piece of HTML that begins to exceed the
size of the related images is either very text-heavy, or its coded in
a particularly inefficient manner.

 

[Whitecrest]

IMHO 30KB is about the limit. Allowing for average congestion and an
instant messaging application open, this will take about 10s on a standard
dialup account. Any longer than that and you'll lose them.

See, I think the page weight depends on the content. If my content is
images, Flash, Music, Video, etc, then a 30K/page rule (may) go out the
window.

Sure, you can have an all text page, that has links to the pictures
(with little thumbnails etc..) or links the the media, and keep it well
under 30K simple to do.

But you could end up turning people away. Someone (this is where we
disagree) interested in seeing your images, (flash games, video, music,
etc...) Will be turned away by a page of nothing but formatted text and
a few thumbs. Some people want want more than formatted text, some
don't.

Use of web technologies and how you create your site completely depends
on who you are trying to reach. Yes, you may turn some people away
because of what you use or how you do it. But on the other side of the
coin, you may also draw people to your site because of those same
technologies (obviously page size is directly related to these choices
to.)

30K (or 4K or what ever) should be used as a guide. But completely
depends on what you offer, and who you are trying to offer it to. It is
a pretty big web out there. Big enough for different ideas on what is
correct.

 

[Barry Pearson]

IMHO 30KB is about the limit. Allowing for average congestion and an
instant messaging application open, this will take about 10s on a
standard dialup account. Any longer than that and you'll lose them.

See, I think the page weight depends on the content. If my content is
images, Flash, Music, Video, etc, then a 30K/page rule (may) go out
the window. [snip]
But you could end up turning people away. Someone (this is where we
disagree) interested in seeing your images, (flash games, video,
music, etc...) Will be turned away by a page of nothing but formatted
text and a few thumbs. Some people want want more than formatted
text, some don't.

Use of web technologies and how you create your site completely
depends on who you are trying to reach. Yes, you may turn some
people away because of what you use or how you do it. But on the
other side of the coin, you may also draw people to your site because
of those same technologies (obviously page size is directly related
to these choices to.)

[snip]

Yes. Trying to make a photographic web site with photographs that are small
and/or overcompressed is not the way to attact the interest of other
photographers, who may be your target audience. And buyers of photographs are
likely to have high-end equipment, including fast networking.

There are sensible things to do. Have proper thumbnails. Give clues about
photograph sizes. Put image sizes in the HTML so that the text renders
properly before the images arrive, etc. Have alt-text.

It really does depend who you think your target audience is. Make up your
mind, study their characteristics as well as you can, and go for it. Trying to
cater for everyone may be exactly the wrong thing to do.

 

[Whitecrest]

It really does depend who you think your target audience is. Make up your
mind, study their characteristics as well as you can, and go for it. Trying to
cater for everyone may be exactly the wrong thing to do.

Just had to quote that because I agree with it.

Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

Nice pics! And AWESOME info for the pics! I Did not have to look at
everything, but is it all film, or have you stated to branch into
digital at all?