how many seconds over 28.8 is too many.

how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Microsoft FrontPage Help

Message

porsche944 -> how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/11/2002 1:30:31)
i was told 10 seconds is to many. But i am haveing a hard time keeping it that small. Also how many kilobites are in a megabite?

alcobuddy -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/11/2002 3:31:25)
I pity the people in the world today still using 28.8kbps - I'd say 6 - 8 seconds on 56k so that equates to 12 - 16 seconds on 28.8k. 1,024 kilobytes = 1 Megabyte! www.alcobuds.com

abbeyvet -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/11/2002 6:16:54)
I generally try to work to a max of 10 secons on 56K - thus twice that on 28.8. I would imagine that the number on 28.8 is very low and the poor unfortunates who are still on it - and thus probably really only connecting at about 20 or less - are undoubtedly accustomed to a very slow internet indeed. Katherine ++++++++++++++++++++++++ www.inkkdesign.com Women and cats will do as they please. Men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.

tdg -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/15/2002 7:33:11)
With all due respect... you should make an effort to design your site with that particular limitation in mind (28.8). The 28.8 most likely reflects the "average" dial-up users modem throughput rate. In other words design to the lowest common denominator. Just my two-cents... Tom G, Sr.

abbeyvet -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/15/2002 10:07:45)
I don't believe we should design to the lowest common denominator at all. Certainly they need to be considered and allowed for but it surely makes more sense to design for the majority with consideration for the minority. If we were to design for the lowest common denomniator we would create sites optimized for those using NN 3 on a Mac at 640x400 resolution with 256 colors, no JavaScript and a 28.8K modem connection. Chances are this individual (if he or she indeed exists) would never actually visit our site. Design desicions are multifactorial and load time is just one of the many constraints that apply. 5 seconds may be too slow for one site, 15 or more absolutely acceptable for another. I find for many sites aiming it under 10 seconds on 56k is a good trade off - it allows some leeway for attractive design and use of graphics without alienating those on slow connections. But not all sites and not always. Katherine ++++++++++++++++++++++++ www.inkkdesign.com Women and cats will do as they please. Men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.

LB -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/15/2002 10:15:35)
Most rural areas in the US, Canada, and Australia still have slow connections... I would think that other nations probably are the same? Striving for a 5 or 10 second load-time on 28k can be very hard, and as noted, these users are used to slower loading pages... just be careful they aren't really slow to load. I would think that designing off a T1 line would get tempting to ignore speed altogether. Keep the basic page load time as fast as possible, but if you were to need larger graphics to show photographs or such then those pages would be expected to take much longer to load. Keep in mind "perceived" load time. If you stack your tables and have plenty of interesting text content along with your graphics, the page will seem to load faster than a page with little text and many graphics within one large table. Linda ---------------- btw - lowest common demonitor for load time would be 14k, which Jego was actually on this past year. I agree that people using old Mac browsers with 256 colors are VERY few (if any), but many people are using 28k - our local ISP is 22k tops. Another nice option for a slow loading site is to have a text link at the top of the page leading to a text version of the site. It could be as simple as one page that someone can easily read through and print if they want. Edited by - LB on 03/15/2002 10:34:05

Jego -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/15/2002 22:35:06)
Now you see why I blather on at times!! If I don't get it all said in one burst, it may take ages before I can say something again! LOL But seriously...as a "poor unfortunate" (oh Katherine, I feel so shameful! ) I'm not actually on a 28.8 modem...I'm on a 56K modem; however, my connection speed is usually 28.8 (fastest ever has been 31.2), and yes, down to 14 at times (at which time I usually call it a night, as it's just not worth it). The reality is that there are TONS like me...the only alternative for us is to get a satellite connection and while it's still fairly expensive in the States...for some reason (low CDN$ aside) the cost in Canada is ridiculously prohibitive and choice extremely limited. (And I'm only 10 minutes outside of a town where a T1 line is readily available <groan!>....but no way, no how is it coming to our area. We're still on the old copperwire phone lines. I have most definitely, over the last year, seen the internet "slowing down" for me and others like me. Sites are getting bigger and bigger (download times) and it's getting really, really boring waiting for them. 50% of the time I don't wait. I go to the next site on the list and hope it's got the same info but faster. It would be interesting to know what the percentage is of users who can only connect at a max of 28.8, even though they have a 56K modem. I think the only way to analyze that would be to find out what regions are still serviced by copperwire phone lines. Bet it's more than the design world thinks it is. Anyone want to take on the task?? Jego

abbeyvet -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/16/2002 6:53:42)
I wasn't being at all dismissive of those on slow connections - I am on one, and I am willing to bet it is more expensive than the fastest connection anyone else has, something of the order of $300 per month would be about average for me. The only thing you can do is not ponder on it too much. This is Ireland - where the goverment like to spout rhetoric about us being the "digital hub of Europe". Huh!. How many people have access to DSL then? Answer: none, it is not yet available. What about cable? Nope. Well, I tell a lie - there is a pilot program of cable available to one small area of Dublin. Satellite? Only if you are a large company and can afford truely prohibitive rates. You can get ISDN - but it casts twice as much in monthly base rates and your calls each time you connect are charged at twice the already exorbitant rate. So not very practical then. There is talk we will have DSL before the end of the year - mind you there was that talk last year and the year before too, but eventually it must be true. Of course, as in other places, it will only be available in some areas. I am lucky enough now to be in a newly built house within a mile and a half of an exchange so I will probably be one of the lucky ones. But last year we bought and considered building on a truely gorgeous site just 6 miles away. On enquiring I was told the chances of ever, in the foreseeable future at least, having a high speed connection there was in the region of zero. So, we are staying put and the site is for sale. Madness I know, but this is what I work at, it is important to me. My point really was that when making pronouncements about load time there can be no hard and fast rules apart from the fact that you make it as fast as is possible without losing site of what the site is aimed at doing. There are some sites that just need barely embellished text and will thus be possible to design so that they load like a rocket for just about everyone. There are others who have other agendas and need lots of images, heavier design or whatever it is that will somewhat slow loading, and ignoring and going for fast load as the primary consideration would be short changing these sites. The skill is is getting the balance right so that the site is able to meet its aims and at the same time load times are kept within whatever is considered, for that particular site, to be an acceptable limit. Katherine ++++++++++++++++++++++++ www.inkkdesign.com Women and cats will do as they please. Men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea. Edited by - abbeyvet on 03/16/2002 07:00:09

john40004 -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/16/2002 10:44:32)
A few words from a "poor unfortunate" who at least finds some solace in the fact that a little pity is out there Like Jego in Canada, I'm sitting here in the Blue Grass region of Kentucky with a 56K modem zipping along at 28.8. Actually, that's quite an improvement since I recently installed the dedicated data line, which the telephone company by the way, only guarantees at 19. I too used to range from 14.4 to 26.4. A few more weeks at this speed and I'll feel comfortable enough to take off the seatbealt and helmet Living "out in the country, as we say down here, the nearest cable modem connection is 7+ miles away in the largest city in the county (population 7,200). As to DSL, I'd have to move this 146 year-old home 45 miles to Louisville. Linda brings up a very important point as to page design and content. With IE 6.0 on a three month-old Dell 4300S and XP Pro, some pages, even with graphics, load in an instant - others drag. Very interesting thought as to finding out connection speeds from members here Jego. Perhaps "someone" could possibly set-up a poll so we could find out John Age is a high price to pay for maturity.

godshall2 -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/16/2002 14:12:15)
Hi John, Please, not a poll Ive been wandering along mindlessly knowing slow connections existed but with the introduction of 2 way high speed satellite, I thought most would buck up and pay for it if they had to I would hate to see the real truth as I am a graphics related site and frankly, a little on the slow side but without much choice. With the popularity of Flash, I dont see sites getting any slower.. I really do feel bad for some that posted to this thread as we all have been there at one time. Its so annoying to have a dial up... May the internet Gods bless you all with a broadband connection soon... Troy \| www.aplustemplates.com �

john40004 -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/16/2002 15:30:03)
Hi Troy, I'm more than a little bit conservative as to "cutting-edge" technology. In September 1985 we purchased a satellite dish, one of those ancient seven foot jobs, about nine feet tall, with a motor to move it to each satellite. The installer promised "hundreds" of channels. He was correct for three months - in January 1986 all major feeds scrambled their signals. It wasn't a total write-off however, our $1,700 investment (1986 dollars) has been the home for a family of hawks for many years Also, about ten months ago, I signed-off on a new $125,000 telephone system for our operation. My IS folks wanted another state-of-the-art system for $195,000. It was a truly amazing system, the servers would literally float off the floor. I read about a month ago the company had gone belly-up. I try to stay current, but I also let others be the path-finders. I'm only seven miles from a cable modem and unfortunity, due to the growth of the county, it gets nearer every day As to hating to learn the truth due to your graphics oriented site - you proved the validity of Linda's comments. Your site loaded at 28 seconds with my 28.8 connection speed Its not just the hardware/software - its also the design. Great job!! John Age is a high price to pay for maturity.

godshall2 -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/18/2002 18:16:54)
Oh no, the poll has begun:) John I have to say, after reading your comment I almost fell off my chair laughing.. quote: we purchased a satellite dish, one of those ancient seven foot jobs, about nine feet tall, with a motor to move it to each satellite. The installer promised "hundreds" of channels. He was correct for three months - in January 1986 all major feeds scrambled their signals. It wasn't a total write-off however, our $1,700 investment (1986 dollars) has been the home for a family of hawks for many years Your in the wrong field. You should have been a comedian. Still laughing outloud ( not at you but with you) Thanks for the chuckle, I needed it:) Troy �

john40004 -> RE: how many seconds over 28.8 is too many. (3/18/2002 19:26:36)
Hi Troy, No need to apologize as to the laugh - I've been married for 28 years this April, I'm used to both As to connection speeds, I'm SO glad Spooky added the poll It will take some time to get a good response, but initial replies indicate many of us are likely stuck with our connections. As Linda mentioned, site design is a very important feature. I'm here to learn, not to teach. My postings are in the Beginners section. I do however, appreciate sites such as your's which load quickly. Initial poll replies seem to indicate a large percentage at 28.8 to 56K. That would also tell me that websites must also include that demographic. There's always a "cutting-edge" as to technology, put you have to be careful not to leave the majority of your users behind you. John Age is a high price to pay for maturity.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.078125