HELP- What's your download time?
Mark Kleinhaut
I'm looking into issues related to website design and the sites that use flash
look really attractive, but some of them are very slow to download for folks
using dial ups (still).
So, I'm wondering (informal poll here) who is using dial ups and how long
stuff like this takes to load.
Example: kindly visit this site http://arthurlipner.com that belongs to
a great vibes player (Vic Juris is on his CDs, BTW) and let me know how long
it takes to load on your computer.
I really like Arthur's site and am considering it a bit of a model for mine.
Any other cool artists sites anyone could recommend would be appreciated
too. My site is going to be located/hosted at www.jazzcorner.com
That in advance (tia)
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Mark.html
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Holger Weber
"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3ef07...@127.0.0.1...
>
> I'm looking into issues related to website design and the sites that use
flash
> look really attractive, but some of them are very slow to download for
folks
> using dial ups (still).
>
> So, I'm wondering (informal poll here) who is using dial ups and how long
> stuff like this takes to load.
>
> Example: kindly visit this site http://arthurlipner.com that belongs to
> a great vibes player (Vic Juris is on his CDs, BTW) and let me know how
long
> it takes to load on your computer.
>
> I really like Arthur's site and am considering it a bit of a model for
mine.
> Any other cool artists sites anyone could recommend would be appreciated
> too. My site is going to be located/hosted at www.jazzcorner.com
>
> That in advance (tia)
ADSL, after 3 min the site hasn't loaded yet. BTW I hate sites that welcome
you with music clips. I often listen to music while surfing. Can also be
very annoying if you surf late in the evening and forgot to turn off the
connected stereo system...
Also with jazzcorner.com you seem to get stuck in the frames so the back
button of my IE doesn't work. I hate that ;)
All in all I'm not impressed.
Holger Weber
"Holger Weber" <hg_weber...@yahoo.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bcptsu$m8lg5$1...@ID-45201.news.dfncis.de...
I surfed a bit more on jazzcorner and find the flash animations to be a
major PITA. Not one for the bookmarks I'm afraid.
RA
> I surfed a bit more on jazzcorner and find the flash animations to be a
> major PITA. Not one for the bookmarks I'm afraid.
Many people abuse Flash, or sometimes they're simply building a site
for the sake of displaying their Flash skills, which can annoy someone
looking for specific content or information..
but Flash itself is a powerful tool that can greatly decrease the time
people spend waiting for content to download, if used properly.
Would someone with a slow dialup modem please try this link
and see how fast the large images load for you:
http://freetoys.com/hawk
regards,
RA
Curt Sheller
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking into issues related to website design and the sites that use flash
> look really attractive, but some of them are very slow to download for folks
> using dial ups (still).
Still using dialup (even to update www.jazzguitarresources.com). S L O W
>
> So, I'm wondering (informal poll here) who is using dial ups and how long
> stuff like this takes to load.
Flash sites usually always take longer than I care to wait. It is
doesn't load 10 seconds or less I bail. Hope to get cable later on as
it is available in my area now.
>
> Example: kindly visit this site http://arthurlipner.com that belongs to
> a great vibes player (Vic Juris is on his CDs, BTW) and let me know how long
> it takes to load on your computer.
Killed it after 30 seconds.
Went back again and it is over a minute. Killed again.
If people are "just" surfing they will bail on a slow loading site. If
they are really interested in seeing the site they just might get
pissed that it is slow.
I'll try later to see the http://arthurlipner.com site.
>
> I really like Arthur's site and am considering it a bit of a model for mine.
> Any other cool artists sites anyone could recommend would be appreciated
> too. My site is going to be located/hosted at www.jazzcorner.com
Steve Herberman has a very clean site (fast loading) at
steveherberman.com
Check out Diane Hubka's site she has designed
(http://www.dhjazzdesign.com/)
If you do do a site with flash please be sure to offer a non-flash
version and give people an option.
If I redo my personal Curt Sheller - Jazz Guitarist site it would along
the lines of what Diane is doing. My www.jazzguitarresources.com is
more of a toal info site along the lins of Yahoo and Google with a
little more graphic stuff added in.
>
> That in advance (tia)
>
>
Good luck.
Curt Sheller
--
Curt Sheller
Curt Sheller Publications
www.curtsheller.com
www.jazzguitarresources.com
paul
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I'm looking into issues related to website design and the sites that use flash
>look really attractive, but some of them are very slow to download for folks
>using dial ups (still).
>
<unsolicited opinion>
I hate flash, and I hate music clips that play automatically on sites.
Flash is great for movies, but I have never seen a flash site that
does anything but impede navigation and annoy both me and people on
dialups in general. Clean html is 10 times as fast, and you can make
html do some pretty nice looking stuff. my friend designed my
site(http://www.paulsanwald.com/) and I thought he did a great job.
I think jazzcorner is great, and lois is a very cool person (I had a
brief conversation with her once about bulletin board systems). But
the flash they use drives me up a wall.
</unsolicited opinion>
--paul
David Morton
Kleinhaut) wrote:
> Example: kindly visit this site http://arthurlipner.com that belongs to
> a great vibes player (Vic Juris is on his CDs, BTW) and let me know how
> long
> it takes to load on your computer.
I've an ADSL connection and it still took 30s to load.
Had I not wanted to know exactly how long, so I could reply, I'd have
bailed out before then. AFAIAC more than 15-20s and I need to be *really*
keen to see what's there (ie I need to know the information I want is on
that site).
If I was idly browsing I wouldn't wait 30s for the front page to load.
Thinking about it I think it's rather insulting to the user, it says:
"we're going to keep you waiting while we load a pile of stuff in which
you may have no interest, but we've decided your time is of no value and
we get to decide what you see and hear, so tough shit".
grant
"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef07...@127.0.0.1...
>
> I'm looking into issues related to website design and the sites that
use flash
> look really attractive, but some of them are very slow to download for
folks
> using dial ups (still).
>
> So, I'm wondering (informal poll here) who is using dial ups and how
long
> stuff like this takes to load.
>
> Example: kindly visit this site http://arthurlipner.com that belongs
to
> a great vibes player (Vic Juris is on his CDs, BTW) and let me know
how long
> it takes to load on your computer.
>
> I really like Arthur's site and am considering it a bit of a model for
mine.
> Any other cool artists sites anyone could recommend would be
appreciated
> too. My site is going to be located/hosted at www.jazzcorner.com
>
> That in advance (tia)
>
I've got cable & the site loaded in a couple of minutes. I'm not a fan
of Flash, it's frustrating sitting through an animation when you're
after content. www.johnmclaughlin.com/ gives the user a choice of flash
or javascript versions and the option to skip the introduction. Also,
search engines can't currently spider flash sites so you would lose
potential visitors.
Holger Weber
"paul" <pcsa...@pobox.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3ef07fb2...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
What Paul said.
Designwise this is one of my favourite sites although (or rather because)
it's...err.... different:
Mark Kleinhaut
Holger, I hear you. The MAIN reason for jazzcorner affiliation is the fast
company over there -look at the roster- and that they get millions of hits.
I would have the option of a non-flash site or a flash/html combo site.
That's why I'm asking here:)
Info and soundclips about:
"Chasing Tales":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Chasing%20Tales.html
"Amphora":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
"Secrets of Three": http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
Mark Kleinhaut
"grant" <gr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I've got cable & the site loaded in a couple of minutes. I'm not a fan
>of Flash, it's frustrating sitting through an animation when you're
>after content. www.johnmclaughlin.com/ gives the user a choice of flash
>or javascript versions and the option to skip the introduction. Also,
>search engines can't currently spider flash sites so you would lose
>potential visitors.
>
Thanks for suggesting JM's site to look at. The Flash version is much more
impressive that the regular side, but in either case, I can barely read the
tiny print in the text boxes- that's most surprising for an artist of JM's
stature (resouces).
I appreciate everyone's feedback so far. I had no idea that flash would
stir such controversy:)
Mark Kleinhaut
dmo...@well.com (David Morton) wrote:
>
>Thinking about it I think it's rather insulting to the user, it says:
>"we're going to keep you waiting while we load a pile of stuff in which
>you may have no interest, but we've decided your time is of no value and
>we get to decide what you see and hear, so tough shit".
I guess you're right that some people will look at it this way, though it
should be obvious that everyone's just trying to get their voice out there.
I appreciate this sort of feedback very much.
Bill Ribas
would be excruciating. To me, flash is for the most part worthless (my
opinion), since such a small percentage seems to be able to use it properly.
also, as far as the music clip on the home page goes, that's another major
annoyance, since, if you have to navigate the site and come back to home,
that clip will drive the visitor nuts. i visit a lot of musician sites
(reviewing cd's is a job), and most of them are such a waste, promoting
effects and gimmicks over content. keep it simple, keep it clean, and if you
start thinking of putting something groovy in, take a walk to clear your
head. http://www.thecontes.com is one band from last month's batch that
maintains a simple site, easy to blow through, and no flash. it's your call
in the end, but i would avoid the music and flash.
"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef07...@127.0.0.1...
>
Max Leggett
background while I typed this, and at 2 minutes it was still bouncing
up and down and annoying me. 4 minutes and still nada, and I don't
care any more.
I generally never wait more than about 15 seconds - all this fancy
itshay that web developers stick in just because they can: I fail to
see how it advances the content. In fact it's downright detrimental,
'cause I won't wait around for it.
5 minutes 45 seconds. Way too long.
On 18 Jun 2003 09:03:12 -0500, "Mark Kleinhaut"
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Kleinhaut
mleg...@nospam.ca (Max Leggett) wrote:
>On a 56k modemI gave up after a timed minute. I let it run in the
>background while I typed this, and at 2 minutes it was still bouncing
>up and down and annoying me. 4 minutes and still nada, and I don't
>care any more.
>
>I generally never wait more than about 15 seconds - all this fancy
>itshay that web developers stick in just because they can: I fail to
>see how it advances the content. In fact it's downright detrimental,
>'cause I won't wait around for it.
>
>5 minutes 45 seconds. Way too long.
>
Hi Max, OK point(s) well taken. Please try this site that's also at Jazz
Corner: http://matthiaslupri.com
Holger Weber
"Bill Ribas" <bill...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:GP%Ha.1376$UO2...@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> I have a dsl line, and it took a while to load, so figure with a modem, it
> would be excruciating. To me, flash is for the most part worthless (my
> opinion), since such a small percentage seems to be able to use it
properly.
> also, as far as the music clip on the home page goes, that's another major
> annoyance, since, if you have to navigate the site and come back to home,
> that clip will drive the visitor nuts. i visit a lot of musician sites
> (reviewing cd's is a job), and most of them are such a waste, promoting
> effects and gimmicks over content. keep it simple, keep it clean, and if
you
> start thinking of putting something groovy in, take a walk to clear your
> head. http://www.thecontes.com is one band from last month's batch that
> maintains a simple site, easy to blow through, and no flash. it's your
call
> in the end, but i would avoid the music and flash.
>
Here's a website by a friend of mine that incorporates soundclips without
being too much of a pain. A bit darkish though..
http://www.dirk-schaadt-trio.de/
Holger Weber
>
> mleg...@nospam.ca (Max Leggett) wrote:
> >On a 56k modemI gave up after a timed minute. I let it run in the
> >background while I typed this, and at 2 minutes it was still bouncing
> >up and down and annoying me. 4 minutes and still nada, and I don't
> >care any more.
> >
> >I generally never wait more than about 15 seconds - all this fancy
> >itshay that web developers stick in just because they can: I fail to
> >see how it advances the content. In fact it's downright detrimental,
> >'cause I won't wait around for it.
> >
> >5 minutes 45 seconds. Way too long.
> >
>
> Hi Max, OK point(s) well taken. Please try this site that's also at Jazz
> Corner: http://matthiaslupri.com
>
1 min to the recordings section, and then it's Realplayer only. Yuck!
Kevin Van Sant
>
>I'm looking into issues related to website design and the sites that use flash
>look really attractive, but some of them are very slow to download for folks
>using dial ups (still).
>
>So, I'm wondering (informal poll here) who is using dial ups and how long
>stuff like this takes to load.
>
>Example: kindly visit this site http://arthurlipner.com that belongs to
>a great vibes player (Vic Juris is on his CDs, BTW) and let me know how long
>it takes to load on your computer.
with cable modem it loaded in about 5 seconds.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
jazz guitar
http://www.kevinvansant.com
to buy my CDs, listen to sound clips, and get more info.
Alternate site for recent soundclips
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/kevinvansant_music.htm
Max Leggett
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Max, OK point(s) well taken. Please try this site that's also at Jazz
>Corner: http://matthiaslupri.com
15 seconds flat. Way cool. It's the content that I'm after, and I'd
assume musicians generally would be like that. The Flash should stay
in the pan. [huge guffaw off] The fact that things shimmer into place
once they eventually load is kinda immaterial. Of course, if I could
afford a cable line I'd sneer at dialup. Maybe we should start a
thread - How many jazzers like dialup? Oughta be some good flames in
there. "Only Natsies use cable!" "You fool! Real men use dial up!"
"Barney Kessel didn't use either and couldn't swing!"
Mark Kleinhaut
Holger, what kind of connection are you using? Matthias is a non-flash site
and should have loaded quickly. I can't imagine what took a minute to load.
I actually prefer realaudio to mp3 simply because I can access them from
work. Anything with mp3 extension is blocked by the corporate servers but
real audio and windows media stuff works fine.
MP3 and real audio never do justice to the CD in any event.
Blue Monk
connection.
It's a hard choice to make on which way to go. For my site, I chose to
eliminate the "html version" for slower connection speeds because I prefer
the "flash version".
You can make two versions and have an intro page where a person can choose
either the html version or flash version. And you can keep the html version
very simple. Just a suggestion.
And a cool tool to use to check your connection speed is at:
http://www.2wire.com/
and on the right hand side click on the "test your bandwidth meter" button.
Monk
http://www.dreamtracks.com/
On 6/18/03 10:03 AM, in article 3ef07...@127.0.0.1, "Mark Kleinhaut"
Gtrmon
Gtrmon
I logged on to the site at 12:21:40, finished loading at
12:27:09. Only 5 and a half minutes. Not bad.
The fastest way to get a site to load is with minimal
html, mostly text, a few buttons, if you think you need
graphics, opening page with monochrome can work
way way faster than 16 million colors. If you can get
someone to put the initial interface in as simple a form
as possible, everyone will get on quickly, for dialup
connections you need to make downloads available,
streaming sucks in general for dialup, although quick
time and real player work reasonably well and both
formats give a small file size for the playback quality.
Good luck, remember, you can always change after
the startup.
Don Judy
"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef07...@127.0.0.1...
>
Holger Weber
>> Holger, what kind of connection are you using? Matthias is a non-flash
site
> and should have loaded quickly. I can't imagine what took a minute to
load.
>
> I actually prefer realaudio to mp3 simply because I can access them from
> work. Anything with mp3 extension is blocked by the corporate servers but
> real audio and windows media stuff works fine.
>
> MP3 and real audio never do justice to the CD in any event.
>
Rebooted my system, still 50 sec. from start to the recordings section. The
jpgs seem to be slow. I'm on ADSL, reasonably fast.
I deinstalled Realplayer quite some time ago.Do a googlegroup search for
"realplayer" or "realone" and "spyware". Furthermore you can't easily d/l
.ram files. At least make it two formats, .ram and .wmv or even quicktime
format.
Blue Monk
connection.
It's a hard choice to make on which way to go. For my site, I chose to
eliminate the "html version" for slower connection speeds because I prefer
the "flash version".
You can make two versions and have an intro page where a person can choose
either the html version or flash version. And you can keep the html version
very simple. Just a suggestion.
And a cool tool to use to check your connection speed is at:
http://www.2wire.com/
and on the right hand side click on the "test your bandwidth meter" button.
Monk
http://www.dreamtracks.com/
On 6/18/03 10:03 AM, in article 3ef07...@127.0.0.1, "Mark Kleinhaut"
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gtrmon
don judy
"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef08b9b$1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
Tim Berens
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I'm looking into issues related to website design and the sites that use flash
>look really attractive, but some of them are very slow to download for folks
>using dial ups (still).
>
>So, I'm wondering (informal poll here) who is using dial ups and how long
>stuff like this takes to load.
>
>Example: kindly visit this site http://arthurlipner.com that belongs to
>a great vibes player (Vic Juris is on his CDs, BTW) and let me know how long
>it takes to load on your computer.
>
>I really like Arthur's site and am considering it a bit of a model for mine.
>Any other cool artists sites anyone could recommend would be appreciated
>too. My site is going to be located/hosted at www.jazzcorner.com
>
>That in advance (tia)
>
Mark:
I closed Internet Explorer at the one minute mark...the page still
hadn't loaded yet.
Personally, I just skip websites that are slow. And I skip beautiful
websites, because beautiful websites are always slow websites. There
are lots of people like me out there.....folks on a dial up who simply
will not wait for graphics to load.
There's so much incredible stuff on the net; why bother with a page
that won't load quickly?
Look at the largest net companies in the world....the ones who poured
millions into research and development to find out the best way to
design user interfaces over the net, companies like Microsoft, IBM,
Oracle....these companies all have very simple, mostly text based
websites.
Draw the line between beauty and ease of use carefully.
Tim
http://timberens.com
A Website for Guitarists
Learn something...Have some fun
Gtrmon
another 10 to load the recordings page. Not bad, but
I may have had much of the initial crap already cached
which would skew the results favorably. I have to say
once the initial jazzcorner site loaded the rest was
fairly quick, but it looks like there's gonna be 5 minutes of
initial waiting on dialup for jazzcorner.com to load. While
once can keep a cache available beyond one session, this
isn't really workable with sites that change frequently, not
to mention that most people won't have enough interest to
want the HD cluttered with caches from formerly visited
URLS. Wait, what am I saying? Most people don't even
know how their cache is currently set up.
Don Judy
"Holger Weber" <hg_weber...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:bcq2a8$m4lj6$1...@ID-45201.news.dfncis.de...
Poets axe
>a great vibes player (Vic Juris is on his CDs, BTW) and let me know how long
>it takes to load on your computer
After 1 minute +, I gave up watching those sqaures doing their little jig.
Sorry...
LarryV
your own music and have some other music start playing on top of it.
And besides the late night issue, I'll often surf the web while I'm on
concalls and there's been a few times I've hit a site and all of a
sudden music starts blaring because I forgot to mute the speakers. I
like having the choice as to whether I want to listen to something or
not. I also don't like the Flash intro stuff.
"Holger Weber" <hg_weber...@yahoo.de> wrote in message news:<bcptsu$m8lg5
Keith Freeman
> a great vibes player (Vic Juris is on his CDs, BTW) and let me know
About a minute (cable modem).
-Keith
Keith Freeman
two buttons, Play Intro and Go Straight to Site.
-Keith
tomw
hg_weber...@yahoo.de says...
> ADSL, after 3 min the site hasn't loaded yet. BTW I hate sites that welcome
> you with music clips.
Ditto. Today I went to a site that opened playing a clip and it crashed
my system(Windows2000)!
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
paul
<hg_weber...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>Rebooted my system, still 50 sec. from start to the recordings section. The
>jpgs seem to be slow. I'm on ADSL, reasonably fast.
>I deinstalled Realplayer quite some time ago.Do a googlegroup search for
>"realplayer" or "realone" and "spyware". Furthermore you can't easily d/l
>.ram files. At least make it two formats, .ram and .wmv or even quicktime
>format.
>
what holger said. The other thing you have to keep in mind is most
people listen and download mp3s. If you want to, have both and give
people a choice of formats, but if you just have .ra files, you might
as well also ask people not to listen to your music. Real software is
downright evil.
--paul
paul
<hg_weber...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>Designwise this is one of my favourite sites although (or rather because)
>it's...err.... different:
>
that's a beautiful site, a great example of what you can do with
straight html (and a little javascript). I've never seen any flash
site designed better than that.
don't even get me started on flash intros. is there anyone out there
that has actually ever watched a flash intro?
--paul
Bill Ribas
"paul" <pcsa...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3ef0ccff...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
the idiocy behind a flash intro amazes me. what can it possibly give you,
especially if there is a button to click to avoid it? that's almost a
definition of worthless right there. and who wants to read "loading" waiting
for something that gives you nothing? oy.
Ted Vieira
> From: "Holger Weber" <hg_weber...@yahoo.de>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:21:49 +0200
> Subject: Re: HELP- What's your download time?
>
> Designwise this is one of my favourite sites although (or rather because)
> it's...err.... different:
>
> http://www.wattxtrawatt.com/
Cool site.
I've seen some really cool flash sites and I think as it becomes improved
upon and transfer rates increase, it could become the standard. For now, I'd
rather see a tastefully done site done without flash.
Ted Vieira
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
http://TedVieira.com
Bio Info, Free Online Guitar Instruction,
Instructional Books, Articles, hear my CDs and more...
--
Soloing Over Altered Chords: 4 ways to use melodic
minor scales to solo over altered dominant chords.
View at: http://TedVieira.com/altered/index.html
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
florian schmidt
>
> I'm looking into issues related to website design and the sites that use flash
> look really attractive, but some of them are very slow to download for folks
> using dial ups (still).
>
Disclaimer: Caution, Rant ahead...
Hmm, i'm pretty much opposed to flash and javascript and most other flashy
technologies, since they don't really improve website performance. with
"performance" i mean in this case: the ability to give the viewer the
infos he needs quickly and without hassles.
I often have the feeeling that website designers who use flash usually
don't want to improve the "real" function of their website (which could
more easily done by a slick content management system and a clear concise
menu structure) but rather want to show off with the visual art involved.
While i think that visual art and flash stuff has its place i don't think
99% of the websites that use it actually improve their website with this.
Plus it is often conterproductive: You want to communicate something
(being it a business offer or some other content like gig dates, weblogs
or whatever). Why would you want to exclude a portion of viewers which
have either slow dial up connections or just don't have flash installed
because they are annoyed by it (there's more people annoyed by flash than
you probably think).. If 30% of computer users don't have flash installed,
do you want to risk that the one person who could offer you a good deal or
something is with these 30%? (the number is an estimate without better
knowledge)..
If you decide to make a flash site, under all circumstances include a
html-only version because many people will use it, i promise (me being one
of them. i have flash installed only for those pages which just can't be
viewed without. what an annoyance! ;)..
Least of all: I have an adsl connection and the website you gave the link
to loaded too slow for my taste, though this is rather a design issue: The
site loads without a progress bar. just some bouncing squares. Users like
Feedback. If nothing happens for more than 5 secs people think the
connection is down or something (with html you see the page build while
loading which is valuable feedback)..
my .02$
Florian Schmidt
Tom Lippincott
>>
>>Designwise this is one of my favourite sites although (or rather because)
>>it's...err.... different:
>>
>
>that's a beautiful site, a great example of what you can do with
>straight html (and a little javascript). I've never seen any flash
>site designed better than that.
that's one of the coolest sites I've ever seen.
>
>don't even get me started on flash intros. is there anyone out there
>that has actually ever watched a flash intro?
>
>--paul
>
I hate all that stuff; I tried with that site, Mark, and gave up after about 45
seconds of waiting.
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
8 string guitar audio samples at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/3/tomlippincottmusic.htm
Kevin Van Sant
<mista...@gmx.net> wrote in message
<pan.2003.06.18....@gmx.net> :
>On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:03:12 -0500, Mark Kleinhaut wrote:
>> I'm looking into issues related to website design and the sites that use flash
>> look really attractive, but some of them are very slow to download for folks
>> using dial ups (still).
>Disclaimer: Caution, Rant ahead...
>
>Hmm, i'm pretty much opposed to flash and javascript and most other flashy
>technologies, since they don't really improve website performance. with
>"performance" i mean in this case: the ability to give the viewer the
>infos he needs quickly and without hassles.
>
This thread has made me wonder about reactions to my own website. I
have a flash based front page navigation thing happening. It's very
minimal though, I could actually do just about the same thing with
javascript and mouseover events, but the flash is easier to assemble,
and makes for smoother transitions and ultimately smaller overall file
size (than if I was to create the same effect with individual graphics
files and javascript)
I've received many compliments and not one complaint about that page
yet there seems to be a vocal resistance to flash in this thread. So
I'd like to take an informal poll of those of you who are generally
opposed to flash... how do you feel about my opening page? Does it
load fast enough? Thanks (URL below - my domain, not the soundclick
site)
Kevin Van Sant
message <3ef0ccff...@News.CIS.DFN.DE> :
>don't even get me started on flash intros. is there anyone out there
>that has actually ever watched a flash intro?
I'm willing to admit that I've watched a few. Most of them are no
more than just a fancy cover page, but still sometimes I can really
appreciate the design and the work that went into creating it. If
there is not a "skip intro" link I bail out, but if there is one,
what's the big deal. If you don't want to watch it, skip it. Then
just bookmark the following page instead and you never have to see it
again.
I guess I should say my tolerance for feature-heavy websites
definitely went up once I got the cable modem.
Max Leggett
wrote:
>This thread has made me wonder about reactions to my own website. I
>have a flash based front page navigation thing happening. It's very
>minimal though, I could actually do just about the same thing with
>javascript and mouseover events, but the flash is easier to assemble,
>and makes for smoother transitions and ultimately smaller overall file
>size (than if I was to create the same effect with individual graphics
>files and javascript)
>
>I've received many compliments and not one complaint about that page
>yet there seems to be a vocal resistance to flash in this thread. So
>I'd like to take an informal poll of those of you who are generally
>opposed to flash... how do you feel about my opening page? Does it
>load fast enough? Thanks (URL below - my domain, not the soundclick
>site)
Never had a problem with the speed of your page loading. Seemed fine
to me. What Flash there was wasn't detrimental.
Pataud
versions of free applications hosted, you can find a
pre-spyware version of realplayer there:
http://oldversion.com/program.php?n=real
It's a great site, I find it very useful.
> ..ram files. At least make it two formats, .ram and .wmv or even quicktime
> format.
>
>
florian schmidt
>
> I've received many compliments and not one complaint about that page
> yet there seems to be a vocal resistance to flash in this thread. So
> I'd like to take an informal poll of those of you who are generally
> opposed to flash... how do you feel about my opening page? Does it
> load fast enough? Thanks (URL below - my domain, not the soundclick
> site)
I like your site, too, since it is well designed with a clear interface.
But for me, there's no trace of flash to be seen on this page. maybe i
have the wrong flash plugin (i'm on linux, so maybe a newer version than i
have is needed).
The front page for me appears just black with the menu at the top. Loads
lightning fast for me, too..
I have visited the site before and i laughed my ass off about the "in
russia" picture.. Very nice :)
Florian Schmidt
Greger Hoel
wrote:
>This thread has made me wonder about reactions to my own website. I
>have a flash based front page navigation thing happening. It's very
>minimal though, I could actually do just about the same thing with
>javascript and mouseover events, but the flash is easier to assemble,
>and makes for smoother transitions and ultimately smaller overall file
>size (than if I was to create the same effect with individual graphics
>files and javascript)
>
>I've received many compliments and not one complaint about that page
>yet there seems to be a vocal resistance to flash in this thread. So
>I'd like to take an informal poll of those of you who are generally
>opposed to flash... how do you feel about my opening page? Does it
>load fast enough? Thanks (URL below - my domain, not the soundclick
>site)
Your site's fine Kevin. Dissing Flash just for being Flash is silly,
it's the stupid use of Flash that I think most of the peeps here are
reacting to. Sadly, Flash - as javascript used to - has become the
weapon of choice for 'style before content' webdesign.
--
Greger
______________________________________________
What's up Chuck?
To email me, replace everything after @ with softhome.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lippincott
>have a flash based front page navigation thing happening. It's very
>minimal though, I could actually do just about the same thing with
>javascript and mouseover events, but the flash is easier to assemble,
>and makes for smoother transitions and ultimately smaller overall file
>size (than if I was to create the same effect with individual graphics
>files and javascript)
>
>I've received many compliments and not one complaint about that page
>yet there seems to be a vocal resistance to flash in this thread. So
>I'd like to take an informal poll of those of you who are generally
>opposed to flash... how do you feel about my opening page? Does it
>load fast enough? Thanks (URL below - my domain, not the soundclick
>site)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________
>Kevin Van Sant
>jazz guitar
Kevin, I think your site is the exception rather than the rule. As others have
pointed out, no one is saying that flash is inherently bad, just that most
people "abuse" it.
David Morton
> This thread has made me wonder about reactions to my own website. I
> have a flash based front page navigation thing happening. It's very
> minimal though, I could actually do just about the same thing with
> javascript and mouseover events, but the flash is easier to assemble,
> and makes for smoother transitions and ultimately smaller overall file
> size (than if I was to create the same effect with individual graphics
> files and javascript)
>
> I've received many compliments and not one complaint about that page
> yet there seems to be a vocal resistance to flash in this thread. So
> I'd like to take an informal poll of those of you who are generally
> opposed to flash... how do you feel about my opening page? Does it
> load fast enough? Thanks (URL below - my domain, not the soundclick
> site)
I don't have any problem with your site because it's so minimal. I didn't
have time to fully formulate the thought "Oh, it's flash, it says loading,
I wonder how long this will take?" in my mind before it was loaded.
The thing about the site at the head of this thread -
http://arthurlipner.com - is that even with a fast connection it takes
enough time to formulate the thought, say it out loud, say it out loud
again, mutter about "bloody flash", consider cancelling it altogether, etc
etc etc.
Then after the long wait for it to load, to add insult to injury, you get
to ask "WTF is that out of tune music superimposed on the track I was
listening to?". The idea of downloading and starting the music by default,
and only offering the user the option to turn the sound off *after* this
has happened is just bollocks.
There's nothing wrong with flash per se, it's just the abuse of flash
that's annoying.
paul
>have a flash based front page navigation thing happening. It's very
>minimal though, I could actually do just about the same thing with
>javascript and mouseover events, but the flash is easier to assemble,
>and makes for smoother transitions and ultimately smaller overall file
>size (than if I was to create the same effect with individual graphics
>files and javascript)
>
I think your site looks great, and it's a nice use of flash (for a
good set of reasons, I might add).
--paul
Bill Francis
--
Bill Francis
Fusion Guitar and Keyboards
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/billfrancismusic.htm
"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef07...@127.0.0.1...
>
> I'm looking into issues related to website design and the sites that use
flash
> look really attractive, but some of them are very slow to download for
folks
> using dial ups (still).
>
> So, I'm wondering (informal poll here) who is using dial ups and how long
> stuff like this takes to load.
>
> Example: kindly visit this site http://arthurlipner.com that belongs to
> a great vibes player (Vic Juris is on his CDs, BTW) and let me know how
long
> it takes to load on your computer.
>
> I really like Arthur's site and am considering it a bit of a model for
mine.
> Any other cool artists sites anyone could recommend would be appreciated
> too. My site is going to be located/hosted at www.jazzcorner.com
>
> That in advance (tia)
>
>
>
>
Bill Francis
--
Bill Francis
Fusion Guitar and Keyboards
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/billfrancismusic.htm
"Blue Monk" <noemai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BB160AEA.3A17F%noemai...@hotmail.com...
> It took me less than 15 seconds to load the site. But I have a pretty
quick
> connection.
>
> It's a hard choice to make on which way to go. For my site, I chose to
> eliminate the "html version" for slower connection speeds because I prefer
> the "flash version".
>
> You can make two versions and have an intro page where a person can choose
> either the html version or flash version. And you can keep the html
version
> very simple. Just a suggestion.
>
> And a cool tool to use to check your connection speed is at:
>
> http://www.2wire.com/
>
> and on the right hand side click on the "test your bandwidth meter"
button.
>
> Monk
> http://www.dreamtracks.com/
>
>
>
> On 6/18/03 10:03 AM, in article 3ef07...@127.0.0.1, "Mark Kleinhaut"
> <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
Bill Francis
heads at a faster rate, but that's just me.
--
Bill Francis
Fusion Guitar and Keyboards
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/billfrancismusic.htm
"Kevin Van Sant" <kvan...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:84q1fvgu35lbrnuev...@4ax.com...