Specify loading order of JPGs?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Chris Tomlinson, Jul 6, 2006.

  1. Hi, is there any way to specify the sequence in which images load on a web
    page?

    More specifically, here is what we need to achieve:

    Image1 starts loading first and the browser does not continue through the
    HTML until Image1 has loaded COMPLETELY. When Image1 is done, Image2 BEGINS
    loading. When Image2 is 100% done, only then does Image 3 begin... and so
    on...

    Anyone able to offer a way to do this? Some sort of browser "Pause" command
    is the ideal solution, which would pause the loading of HTML until the
    current command has completed, and THEN move on to the next 'chunk' of HTML.
    --
    Thanks,
    Me

    Try Google Quik-e-search™ at www.Superhighstreet.com/home
    ....Finds anything or they buy it for you!
     
    Chris Tomlinson, Jul 6, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chris Tomlinson

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Chris Tomlinson" <> wrote:

    >Hi, is there any way to specify the sequence in which images load on a web
    >page?


    Not if those images are coded in the HTML or CSS.

    >More specifically, here is what we need to achieve:
    >
    >Image1 starts loading first and the browser does not continue through the
    >HTML until Image1 has loaded COMPLETELY. When Image1 is done, Image2 BEGINS
    >loading. When Image2 is 100% done, only then does Image 3 begin... and so
    >on...


    That describes your perceived solution to a problem, tell us what you
    are actually trying to do and we may be able to offer useful advice.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Jul 6, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. There is no way to do this by setting some default browser behavour.

    Every image tag has an onload handler. You can use this to start loading
    the next image. For example:

    <img id="img1" src="firstImage.jpg" onload="loaded(this.id);">
    <img id="img2" src="empty.gif" onload="loaded(this);">
    <img id="img3" src="empty.gif" onload="loaded(this);">

    elsewhere:

    <script type="text/javascript">

    var srcs = {
    img1 : 'one.jpg',
    img2 : 'two.jpg',
    img3 : 'three.jpg'
    }

    function loaded(img) {
    if (img.src.indexOf('empty.gif') {
    return; // ignore empty
    }
    nextImgId = ímg' + (parseInt(img.id) + 1);
    nextImg = document.getElementById(nextImgId);
    nextImg.src = srcs[nextImgId];
    }

    </script>

    Somthing like that

    Vincent

    Chris Tomlinson wrote:
    > Hi, is there any way to specify the sequence in which images load on a web
    > page?
    >
    > More specifically, here is what we need to achieve:
    >
    > Image1 starts loading first and the browser does not continue through the
    > HTML until Image1 has loaded COMPLETELY. When Image1 is done, Image2 BEGINS
    > loading. When Image2 is 100% done, only then does Image 3 begin... and so
    > on...
    >
    > Anyone able to offer a way to do this? Some sort of browser "Pause" command
    > is the ideal solution, which would pause the loading of HTML until the
    > current command has completed, and THEN move on to the next 'chunk' of HTML.
     
    Vincent van Beveren, Jul 6, 2006
    #3
  4. "Spartanicus" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >>Image1 starts loading first and the browser does not continue through the
    >>HTML until Image1 has loaded COMPLETELY. When Image1 is done, Image2
    >>BEGINS
    >>loading. When Image2 is 100% done, only then does Image 3 begin... and so
    >>on...

    >
    > That describes your perceived solution to a problem, tell us what you
    > are actually trying to do and we may be able to offer useful advice.


    We are trying to load a series of around 10 large JPGs (300K each), and want
    the first one to appear as quickly as possible. The speed of the remaining
    9 is not quite so important, but they should also appear in the order they
    are listed.

    To summarise, we want to load large images one by one, instead of the
    default staggered browser behaviour.
    --
    Thanks,
    Me

    Try Google Quik-e-searchT at www.Superhighstreet.com/home
    ....Finds anything or they buy it for you!
     
    Chris Tomlinson, Jul 6, 2006
    #4
  5. Chris Tomlinson

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Chris Tomlinson" <> wrote:

    >>>Image1 starts loading first and the browser does not continue through the
    >>>HTML until Image1 has loaded COMPLETELY. When Image1 is done, Image2
    >>>BEGINS
    >>>loading. When Image2 is 100% done, only then does Image 3 begin... and so
    >>>on...

    >>
    >> That describes your perceived solution to a problem, tell us what you
    >> are actually trying to do and we may be able to offer useful advice.

    >
    >We are trying to load a series of around 10 large JPGs (300K each), and want
    >the first one to appear as quickly as possible. The speed of the remaining
    >9 is not quite so important, but they should also appear in the order they
    >are listed.


    See if you have an application on your system that displays the
    uncompressed size of images (most image viewers or editors will do
    this). Add the values for all images displayed on that page up. Now
    consider how a resource strapped device will handle that huge amount of
    data. In this case a "resource strapped device" is likely to be anything
    but the latest desktop computer with a huge amount of system and video
    ram.

    Then there is the load time, globally most internet users are still on
    modem dial up. This includes many so called "developed" countries such
    as for example here in Ireland. A single page with 3MB (disk size) of
    images alone is going to be next to unusable for people who are not on
    fast broadband connections, and slow and cumbersome for those on quite a
    few home broadband packages.

    So unless you have a very good reason why these images *must* be
    viewable simultaneously (unlikely given the dimension alone), the
    correct way to present such content is to present these images one by
    one with a "Next 1 2 3 4 5 ... Previous" navigation.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Jul 6, 2006
    #5
  6. Chris Tomlinson

    Brian Cryer Guest

    "Chris Tomlinson" <> wrote in message
    news:G44rg.97072$...
    > Hi, is there any way to specify the sequence in which images load on a web
    > page?
    >
    > More specifically, here is what we need to achieve:
    >
    > Image1 starts loading first and the browser does not continue through the
    > HTML until Image1 has loaded COMPLETELY. When Image1 is done, Image2
    > BEGINS loading. When Image2 is 100% done, only then does Image 3 begin...
    > and so on...
    >
    > Anyone able to offer a way to do this? Some sort of browser "Pause"
    > command is the ideal solution, which would pause the loading of HTML until
    > the current command has completed, and THEN move on to the next 'chunk' of
    > HTML.


    I experimented with this a while back, take a look at
    http://www.cryer.co.uk/resources/javascript/script3.htm.

    The bottom line is that you can do it, but you have to use JavaScript. My
    advice would be not to go that route unless you have a very good reason for
    it.
    --
    Brian Cryer
    www.cryer.co.uk/brian
     
    Brian Cryer, Jul 6, 2006
    #6
  7. Chris Tomlinson

    mbstevens Guest

    On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:04:57 +0000, Spartanicus wrote:

    > So unless you have a very good reason why these images *must* be
    > viewable simultaneously (unlikely given the dimension alone), the
    > correct way to present such content is to present these images one by
    > one with a "Next 1 2 3 4 5 ... Previous" navigation.


    And to that I would add that thumbnail/enlargement pairs could be
    of help the visitor to preview and decide for herself whether
    to view the larger image at all.
    --
    mbstevens
    http://www.mbstevens.com/howtothumb
     
    mbstevens, Jul 6, 2006
    #7
  8. "mbstevens" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:04:57 +0000, Spartanicus wrote:
    >
    >> So unless you have a very good reason why these images *must* be
    >> viewable simultaneously (unlikely given the dimension alone), the
    >> correct way to present such content is to present these images one by
    >> one with a "Next 1 2 3 4 5 ... Previous" navigation.


    We didn't want to go into too much details in our initial post for fear of
    complicating the issue, but please take a look at the page in question which
    features an interactive streetscape panorama. It should then be clear why
    the images need to be loaded as specified.

    http://www.superhighstreet.com/George-Street-Richmond/

    What you see is actually a series of JPGs sliced in divs. When we add even
    larger streets it will be necessary to control the load order as previous
    mentioned.

    We are aware the file size is not 'ideal', but broadband is only becoming
    more common so we are prepared to grow into that market, rather than
    sacrifice on image quality any further than the current 40% quality setting
    use.

    Thanks to anyone able to offer ways to proceed along the lines of our
    initial approach. We hope you appreciate we are at a stage where responses
    of a negative nature such as 'don't do it' or 'why?' will not really have
    any impact. We are in full steam ahead mode and getting nothing but praise
    from visitors.
    --
    Thanks,
    Me

    Try Google Quik-e-searchT at www.Superhighstreet.com/home
    ....Finds anything or they buy it for you!
     
    Chris Tomlinson, Jul 6, 2006
    #8
  9. Thanks Vincent, we will look into this.

    "Vincent van Beveren" <> wrote in message
    news:44acd48a$0$13213$...
    > There is no way to do this by setting some default browser behavour.
    >
    > Every image tag has an onload handler. You can use this to start loading
    > the next image. For example:
    >
    > <img id="img1" src="firstImage.jpg" onload="loaded(this.id);">
    > <img id="img2" src="empty.gif" onload="loaded(this);">
    > <img id="img3" src="empty.gif" onload="loaded(this);">
    >
    > elsewhere:
    >
    > <script type="text/javascript">
    >
    > var srcs = {
    > img1 : 'one.jpg',
    > img2 : 'two.jpg',
    > img3 : 'three.jpg'
    > }
    >
    > function loaded(img) {
    > if (img.src.indexOf('empty.gif') {
    > return; // ignore empty
    > } nextImgId = ímg' + (parseInt(img.id) + 1);
    > nextImg = document.getElementById(nextImgId);
    > nextImg.src = srcs[nextImgId];
    > }
    >
    > </script>
    >
    > Somthing like that
    >
    > Vincent
    >
    > Chris Tomlinson wrote:
    >> Hi, is there any way to specify the sequence in which images load on a
    >> web page?
    >>
    >> More specifically, here is what we need to achieve:
    >>
    >> Image1 starts loading first and the browser does not continue through the
    >> HTML until Image1 has loaded COMPLETELY. When Image1 is done, Image2
    >> BEGINS loading. When Image2 is 100% done, only then does Image 3
    >> begin... and so on...
    >>
    >> Anyone able to offer a way to do this? Some sort of browser "Pause"
    >> command is the ideal solution, which would pause the loading of HTML
    >> until the current command has completed, and THEN move on to the next
    >> 'chunk' of HTML.
     
    Chris Tomlinson, Jul 6, 2006
    #9
  10. "Brian Cryer" <brian.cryer@127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > "Chris Tomlinson" <> wrote in message
    > news:G44rg.97072$...
    >> Hi, is there any way to specify the sequence in which images load on a
    >> web page?

    >
    > I experimented with this a while back, take a look at
    > http://www.cryer.co.uk/resources/javascript/script3.htm.
    >
    > The bottom line is that you can do it, but you have to use JavaScript. My
    > advice would be not to go that route unless you have a very good reason
    > for it.


    Thanks Brian, that looks interesting. Do you think it would work when the
    sliced images are contained within horizontal divs? You can see how we are
    using this at:
    http://www.superhighstreet.com/George-Street-Richmond/
    --
    Thanks,
    Me

    Try Google Quik-e-search™ at www.Superhighstreet.com/home
    ....Finds anything or they buy it for you!
     
    Chris Tomlinson, Jul 6, 2006
    #10
  11. Chris Tomlinson

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Chris Tomlinson" <> wrote:

    >>> So unless you have a very good reason why these images *must* be
    >>> viewable simultaneously (unlikely given the dimension alone), the
    >>> correct way to present such content is to present these images one by
    >>> one with a "Next 1 2 3 4 5 ... Previous" navigation.

    >
    >We didn't want to go into too much details in our initial post for fear of
    >complicating the issue, but please take a look at the page in question which
    >features an interactive streetscape panorama. It should then be clear why
    >the images need to be loaded as specified.
    >
    >http://www.superhighstreet.com/George-Street-Richmond/
    >
    >What you see is actually a series of JPGs sliced in divs.


    I saw no such thing, I did see a "Please click here to view this page
    correctly" at the top of the page, I didn't bother clicking the link.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Jul 6, 2006
    #11
  12. Chris Tomlinson

    Brian Cryer Guest

    "Chris Tomlinson" <> wrote in message
    news:Or9rg.97232$...
    > "Brian Cryer" <brian.cryer@127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    > news:eek:...
    >> "Chris Tomlinson" <> wrote in message
    >> news:G44rg.97072$...
    >>> Hi, is there any way to specify the sequence in which images load on a
    >>> web page?

    >>
    >> I experimented with this a while back, take a look at
    >> http://www.cryer.co.uk/resources/javascript/script3.htm.
    >>
    >> The bottom line is that you can do it, but you have to use JavaScript. My
    >> advice would be not to go that route unless you have a very good reason
    >> for it.

    >
    > Thanks Brian, that looks interesting. Do you think it would work when the
    > sliced images are contained within horizontal divs? You can see how we
    > are using this at:
    > http://www.superhighstreet.com/George-Street-Richmond/


    I looked at your page, but I'm still not quite sure I understand what you
    mean by "horizontal divs". Wait a minute, do you mean that were you to take
    your "highstreet view" and chop it up into a number of individual images and
    then load each of those individually? If so, I don't see any reason why it
    wouldn't work.

    Be aware that to use JavaScript to control the load order of images means
    that your visitors who don't have JavaScript enabled probably won't see
    anything.

    It might be worth reconsidering what you are trying to do. Currently your
    "highstreet image" is 368KB, that's big, so I can understand your wanting to
    do something about it. Even if you ignore the length of time it takes to
    download the image, having the horizontal scroll bar is undesirable. Would
    thumbnail views be better? Click the thumbnail to view the shop entrance or
    enter? You could also try changing the jpg to use progressive encoding (in
    my experience this can make a big difference with gif files although IE
    still seems to wait until it has finished loading the jpg before displaying
    it regardless of whether its progressive or not).

    I know its not what you asked, but your page took a long time to load. It
    might help reduce the load time if you move away from using a table to
    structure the whole page (I'm not saying don't use tables for structure at
    all [although there are plenty who would disagree], but try to avoid having
    a table that contains everything on the form). It would be worth your while
    also working through the page validation errors (http://validator.w3.org/).
    (Sorry, I realise its work in progress and you would probably get to these
    points once you've sorted out what to do with the big highstreet image.)
    --
    Brian Cryer
    www.cryer.co.uk/brian
     
    Brian Cryer, Jul 6, 2006
    #12
  13. Chris Tomlinson

    mbstevens Guest

    On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:49:13 +0000, Spartanicus wrote:

    >>http://www.superhighstreet.com/George-Street-Richmond/
    >>
    >>What you see is actually a series of JPGs sliced in divs.

    >
    > I saw no such thing, I did see a "Please click here to view this page
    > correctly" at the top of the page, I didn't bother clicking the link.


    I did click around for a bit. There is a truck load of javascript trying
    to do a job that could be done more clearly with straight (X)HTML and CSS,
    and maybe a little server side scripting. It keeps zooming to places I
    didn't intend, popping up new windows with even stranger code behind them.
    There is a slide show running and controls to kill right clicks.
    Unbelievably awful and unusable. "...getting nothing but praise from
    our visitors." Erm, not this visitor.

    Maybe if I had an afternoon to overcome the required learning curve.

    I'd make it usable and accessible before worrying about order of image
    load.
     
    mbstevens, Jul 6, 2006
    #13
  14. "Spartanicus" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Chris Tomlinson" <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> So unless you have a very good reason why these images *must* be
    >>>> viewable simultaneously (unlikely given the dimension alone), the
    >>>> correct way to present such content is to present these images one by
    >>>> one with a "Next 1 2 3 4 5 ... Previous" navigation.

    >>
    >>We didn't want to go into too much details in our initial post for fear of
    >>complicating the issue, but please take a look at the page in question
    >>which
    >>features an interactive streetscape panorama. It should then be clear why
    >>the images need to be loaded as specified.
    >>
    >>http://www.superhighstreet.com/George-Street-Richmond/
    >>
    >>What you see is actually a series of JPGs sliced in divs.

    >
    > I saw no such thing, I did see a "Please click here to view this page
    > correctly" at the top of the page, I didn't bother clicking the link.


    You must be one of the 0.01% who have disabled JavaScript for some reason.
    That sort of statistic is obviously not too worrying for us, but thanks for
    taking the time to tell us you didn't bother.
    --
    Thanks,
    Me
     
    Chris Tomlinson, Jul 6, 2006
    #14
  15. "mbstevens" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:49:13 +0000, Spartanicus wrote:
    >
    >>>http://www.superhighstreet.com/George-Street-Richmond/
    >>>
    >>>What you see is actually a series of JPGs sliced in divs.

    >>
    >> I saw no such thing, I did see a "Please click here to view this page
    >> correctly" at the top of the page, I didn't bother clicking the link.

    >
    > I did click around for a bit. There is a truck load of javascript trying
    > to do a job that could be done more clearly with straight (X)HTML and CSS,


    Thanks for the feedback. What JS are you referring to? The bulk of the JS
    is the Google Maps tracking, which I assure you cannot be done with HTML &
    CSS.

    > and maybe a little server side scripting. It keeps zooming to places I
    > didn't intend, popping up new windows with even stranger code behind them.


    Can you elaborate on where it 'zoomed' to? I assume you mean
    enlarge/magnify?

    What strange windows popped up? All that pops up are the web sites of the
    shops you click on, which is the entire point of the site. It offers online
    shopping from a real high street. If these windows are frustrating, can you
    say how better to take a user to a shop's site without losing the street,
    street position, etc?

    > There is a slide show running and controls to kill right clicks.


    That's right, there is a slideshow. The idea is to bring the user to the
    street, and give them the sights and sounds. Without the slideshow, they
    just get a static 2D view.

    We appreciate this is not what you are used to from ordinary web sites, but
    nothing was ever achieved by not trying to break molds, and as I said,
    broadband is only becoming more common.

    Controls to kill the right clicks? One control, and it is for copyright
    reasons and only on the streetscape - you can right click anywhere else.

    > Unbelievably awful and unusable.


    Thanks for the constructive criticism. We appreciate it is hard for web
    designers to see sites the same way a member of the public would.

    > "...getting nothing but praise from
    > our visitors." Erm, not this visitor.


    > Maybe if I had an afternoon to overcome the required learning curve.


    Can we ask what you found so difficult to learn, as this will help us refine
    the instructions above the street. The basic principle is 'drag the street
    to walk left and right', and 'click on doors or window posters to shop
    there'. We are having trouble understanding how this would need an
    afternoon to learn.

    > I'd make it usable and accessible before worrying about order of image
    > load.


    With your continued feedback on the above, we certainly hope to.
    --
    Thanks,
    Me
     
    Chris Tomlinson, Jul 6, 2006
    #15
  16. "Brian Cryer" <brian.cryer@127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:...

    >> Thanks Brian, that looks interesting. Do you think it would work when
    >> the sliced images are contained within horizontal divs? You can see how
    >> we are using this at:
    >> http://www.superhighstreet.com/George-Street-Richmond/

    >
    > I looked at your page, but I'm still not quite sure I understand what you
    > mean by "horizontal divs". Wait a minute, do you mean that were you to
    > take your "highstreet view" and chop it up into a number of individual
    > images and then load each of those individually? If so, I don't see any
    > reason why it wouldn't work.


    Hi Brian, yes that's right -- in fact that *is* what you were looking at,
    but we did it so cunningly you couldn't tell. ;) The issue is getting the
    divs to load in the right order.

    > Be aware that to use JavaScript to control the load order of images means
    > that your visitors who don't have JavaScript enabled probably won't see
    > anything.


    We are already relying on that as it's less than 1% of people now.

    > It might be worth reconsidering what you are trying to do. Currently your
    > "highstreet image" is 368KB, that's big, so I can understand your wanting
    > to do something about it. Even if you ignore the length of time it takes
    > to download the image, having the horizontal scroll bar is undesirable.
    > Would thumbnail views be better? Click the thumbnail to view the shop
    > entrance or


    We appreciate your feedback, but don't you feel static thumbnails would
    completely lose the virtual 'scroll' along the street that the user can do?

    Broadband is only getting more common.

    > enter? You could also try changing the jpg to use progressive encoding (in
    > my experience this can make a big difference with gif files although IE
    > still seems to wait until it has finished loading the jpg before
    > displaying it regardless of whether its progressive or not).


    They already use progressive which looks very good in Firefox, but we agree
    IE doesn't take advantage :(

    > I know its not what you asked, but your page took a long time to load. It


    Can we ask your connection speed? How long did it take to load roughly?

    > might help reduce the load time if you move away from using a table to
    > structure the whole page (I'm not saying don't use tables for structure at
    > all [although there are plenty who would disagree], but try to avoid
    > having a table that contains everything on the form). It would be worth
    > your while also working through the page validation errors
    > (http://validator.w3.org/). (Sorry, I realise its work in progress and you
    > would probably get to these points once you've sorted out what to do with
    > the big highstreet image.)


    Yep, still in beta but all good points.

    What would you suggest instead of the 3 tables on the page? Do these really
    add a lot to the load time do you think?
    --
    Thanks,
    Me
     
    Chris Tomlinson, Jul 6, 2006
    #16
  17. On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

    > You must be one of the 0.01% who have disabled JavaScript for some
    > reason. That sort of statistic is obviously not too worrying for us,


    If you make up your own numbers, it's no surprise that they don't
    worry you.

    More realistic estimates seem to come up with figures like 10-15% and
    rising (for sites that a reader has no particular reason to trust).

    Even those folks who won't give up MSIE in favour of a real web
    browser, are increasingly hearing about malicious web sites that will
    take advantage of loppholes to do harm to their systems. They only
    have to visit their "internet options"> "security" menu, to be able to
    customise their settings for "the internet".

    Then there's the search engine issue, though you might not be
    concerned about that in the present context.

    Mind you, when I search for topics that are of interest to me, I get
    rather bored at being shown my own hobby pages as the top hits over
    and over again, despite the fact that I made no effort to understand
    the minutiae of SEO.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Jul 6, 2006
    #17
  18. "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
    >
    >> You must be one of the 0.01% who have disabled JavaScript for some
    >> reason. That sort of statistic is obviously not too worrying for us,


    > If you make up your own numbers, it's no surprise that they don't
    > worry you.
    >
    > More realistic estimates seem to come up with figures like 10-15% and
    > rising (for sites that a reader has no particular reason to trust).


    For every site I have run, the JS-disabled statistics of visitors have never
    gone above 1%. Others also share this experience. On one site I kept
    getting hits from someone without JS and it started to worry me when it
    reached 1%... until I realised it was my own test hits!

    > Then there's the search engine issue, though you might not be
    > concerned about that in the present context.


    Can you elaborate on which issue you mean? Cheers.
    --
    Thanks,
    Me
     
    Chris Tomlinson, Jul 6, 2006
    #18
  19. Chris Tomlinson

    mbstevens Guest

    On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:43:04 +0000, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

    > We appreciate this is not what you are used to from ordinary web sites, but
    > nothing was ever achieved by not trying to break molds,


    Starry eyed DHTML experimentation was popular around 1995. When
    the bold experimenters presented their wares to visitors more than a
    decade ago, and visitors rejected them on all but art-experiment sites.
    You're not breaking the mold, you're re-inventing the square wheel.
    Spend your time learning CSS, Perl, Python, PHP, Ruby. The age of cutesy
    JavaScript experiments is long gone.


    > and as I said,
    > broadband is only becoming more common.


    Tell it to these broadband users:
    http://www.opera.com/products/mobile/
    How usable is your site on _those_ devices?

    > Controls to kill the right clicks? One control, and it is for copyright
    > reasons and only on the streetscape - you can right click anywhere else.


    As a matter of fact I already have all the images
    and they are sitting in my browser's cache. Didn't have to do a thing
    to get it there except visit the site. And it will be there until I
    decide to clear my cache. You haven't protected anything, just irritated
    visitors.
     
    mbstevens, Jul 6, 2006
    #19
  20. On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

    > "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote in message
    > >
    > > More realistic estimates seem to come up with figures like 10-15%
    > > and rising (for sites that a reader has no particular reason to
    > > trust).

    >
    > For every site I have run, the JS-disabled statistics of visitors
    > have never gone above 1%.


    Make more of your pages dependent on JS, and you'll be able to
    get that statistic even smaller. Does that tell you something?

    > > Then there's the search engine issue, though you might not be
    > > concerned about that in the present context.

    >
    > Can you elaborate on which issue you mean?


    Search engine indexers generally don't run JS. So any content that's
    only accessible by means of JS won't be considered for indexing.

    OTOH there's millions of pages (depending on exactly how I set the
    search term) which are indexed for haranguing the indexing robot that
    its browser doesn't support javascript. I wouldn't want to waste my
    search engine credits on that sort of administrivia.

    JS has its proper place, for optional extras, I'm not saying it
    shouldn't be used: what I /am/ saying is that in general it's a
    mistake to make a page or site dependent on it. The last time I
    checked a JS FAQ, it said pretty much the same thing.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Jul 6, 2006
    #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. dorayme

    progressive jpgs

    dorayme, Jun 8, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    483
    Travis Newbury
    Jun 8, 2005
  2. Kai Berger

    Read out pixels from .jpgs

    Kai Berger, Jul 1, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    405
    John Carson
    Jul 1, 2004
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    303
    red floyd
    Dec 20, 2004
  4. jojo
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    333
  5. Chris Tomlinson

    Specify loading order of JPGs?

    Chris Tomlinson, Jul 6, 2006, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    243
    Jim Higson
    Jul 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page