Why this web page is so furiously fast?

[Greg]

http://www.scientique.com/

What's the trick here?

 

[mscir]

http://www.scientique.com/
What's the trick here?

This site analyzes web pages for speed:

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/wso.php?url=http://www.scientique.com/

Mike

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

This site analyzes web pages for speed:

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/...

Without even running the analyzer (which I sometimes use), I can see that
the page is very lightweight. It did not load up instantly over here
though. Perhaps the server is located at your country? Perhaps it was
cached on your ISP's side? Or on your machine?

As for the page itself, menus contain no graphics. I can only spot 4 images,
one of which is tiny. If it makes you feel any better, I can spot a problem
with the menus. The text doesn't fit properly and it looks rather bad.

Roy

 

[dorayme]

I can see that
the page is very lightweight. It did not load up instantly over here
though. Perhaps the server is located at your country? Perhaps it was
cached on your ISP's side? Or on your machine?

As for the page itself, menus contain no graphics. I can only spot 4 images,
one of which is tiny. If it makes you feel any better, I can spot a problem
with the menus. The text doesn't fit properly and it looks rather bad.

Roy

It does have more pics but in fairness to you, they can't be spotted easily.
They would be tiny. See the code and fillers like: "<img
src="pics/pixel.jpg" width="210" height="1" border="0">"

It did load very quickly here in Sydney via Optus on dial up. And this is
good. Full of tables too... tut tut eh?

As it happened, it looked perfect on my IE but a font size change either up
or down made it degrade, especially the menu items you mention. A rectangle
containing all the items beside the far left one, "Menu and Information"
detached itself into a separate rectangle... I won't go on... This is ...
how can I put it? ...ironic? no... I dunno, I am thinking here is a design
with tables maybe to get a lot of stability and no css hanky panky and yet
still it mucks up!

I think I have a growing dislike of drop down, pop out, rollover anything. I
don't know what the cause of the design fault is, have not looked into it. I
like it's simple layout, why the hell do people spoil their designs when
they are so close to perfection?

Dorayme

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

It does have more pics but in fairness to you, they can't be spotted
easily. They would be tiny. See the code and fillers like: "<img
src="pics/pixel.jpg" width="210" height="1" border="0">"

It did load very quickly here in Sydney via Optus on dial up. And this is
good. Full of tables too... tut tut eh?

As it happened, it looked perfect on my IE but a font size change either
up or down made it degrade, especially the menu items you mention. A
rectangle containing all the items beside the far left one, "Menu and
Information" detached itself into a separate rectangle... I won't go on...
This is ... how can I put it? ...ironic? no... I dunno, I am thinking here
is a design with tables maybe to get a lot of stability and no css hanky
panky and yet still it mucks up!

I think I have a growing dislike of drop down, pop out, rollover anything.
I don't know what the cause of the design fault is, have not looked into
it. I like it's simple layout, why the hell do people spoil their designs
when they are so close to perfection?

Dorayme

Just to make my point a little stronger.

-Loading of the page took 4-5 seconds on a 100 MBit Ethernet connection.

-Look at the bad appearance of that menu (_default_ font size in FF 1.0.4.)

http://www.schestowitz.com/temp/bad_menu.jpg

Cells are inhomogeneous in size and text spills over to a second line and
even disappears.

-Let's dissect a little deeper...

The images at the top are bad from a usability point-of-view. They are
lifeless dummies that serve no functionality. Instead of "Back to Home
Page" at the bottom-left (with an icon that was nicked from M$ Window$),
wouldn't it be nice to return to site index using the images at the top? It
also complies with the norm, i.e. the expectancy of the visitors.

Roy

 

[JDS]

What's the trick here?

Who cares, when the rest of it is broken and sucky