Site Structure Question

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Benny N., Jan 14, 2004.

  1. Benny N.

    Benny N. Guest

    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.
    Benny N., Jan 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Benny N.

    Steve R. Guest

    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.
    Steve R., Jan 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Benny N.

    Benny N. Guest

    Pretty decent guy, but what about my questions?
    "Steve R." <stevie_ritchie(NOSPAM)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:NsgNb.15623$...
    > 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., Jan 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Benny N.

    West Guest

    "Benny N." <> wrote in message
    news:3agNb.2070$...
    > 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.

    --
    W
    West, Jan 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Benny N.

    m Guest

    Benny N. wrote:

    > 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.
    --
    cheers, m
    m, Jan 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Benny N.

    m Guest

    m wrote:

    > 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.
    --
    cheers, m at mbstevens.com
    m, Jan 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Benny N.

    Benny N. Guest

    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.
    "West" <> wrote in message
    news:gUgNb.5294$...
    >
    > "Benny N." <> wrote in message
    > news:3agNb.2070$...
    > > 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.
    >
    > --
    > W
    >
    >
    Benny N., Jan 14, 2004
    #7
  8. Benny N.

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <iYgNb.9334$>,
    says...
    > 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.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Jan 14, 2004
    #8
  9. Benny N.

    Steve R. Guest

    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 :~)
    Steve R., Jan 14, 2004
    #9
  10. Benny N.

    m Guest

    Steve R. wrote:

    > 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 :~)


    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.
    --
    cheers, m
    m, Jan 14, 2004
    #10
  11. In article Benny N. wrote:
    > 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.


    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
    tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.
    Lauri Raittila, Jan 14, 2004
    #11
  12. Benny N.

    brucie Guest

    in post: <news:3agNb.2070$>
    "Benny N." <> said:

    > 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.

    --
    brucie
    brucie, Jan 14, 2004
    #12
  13. Benny N.

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <kniNb.9398$>,
    says...
    > >> 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 :~)

    > 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.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Jan 14, 2004
    #13
  14. Benny N. wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
    Toby A Inkster, Jan 14, 2004
    #14
  15. Benny N.

    rf Guest

    "Benny N." <> wrote in message
    news:3agNb.2070$...
    > 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.
    rf, Jan 14, 2004
    #15
  16. Benny N.

    Eric Bohlman Guest

    "Benny N." <> wrote in
    news:3BhNb.2127$:

    > 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.
    Eric Bohlman, Jan 15, 2004
    #16
  17. Benny N.

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:48:31 GMT, "Benny N." <>
    wrote:

    >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.
    Andy Dingley, Jan 15, 2004
    #17
  18. Benny N.

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > > 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.


    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.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Jan 15, 2004
    #18
  19. Whitecrest wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> > 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.

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
    http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
    http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
    Barry Pearson, Jan 15, 2004
    #19
  20. Benny N.

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <QvwNb.10302$>,
    says...
    > 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?

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Jan 15, 2004
    #20
    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. Excluded_Middle

    Pointers to structure and array of structure.

    Excluded_Middle, Oct 24, 2004, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    750
    Martin Ambuhl
    Oct 26, 2004
  2. Leo Nunez
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,212
    Neil Kurzman
    Feb 9, 2005
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    602
  4. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    25,298
    Lal Bahadur Singh
    Nov 11, 2011
  5. meisterbartsch
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    780
    meisterbartsch
    Jun 12, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page