HTML tags and loading priority
Badari Devalla
YeLo !
I have a pretty basic question on user customization of loading priority of a HTML doc.
Illustration : Can I specify my browser a loading sequence based on say, tags ? Does any browser
out there - free/dollar ware allow me to do this ?
Conversely, does HTML spec allow use of document contents for browser loading directives ?
Here's what I am thinking - If I can introduce a new tag "<advt>" for flashy irritating
commercials on web pages, and if i could tell my browser to load this tag last when loading a
document (or not at all), surfing would be a lot more pleasant. Present day browsers do
seem to use some loading sequence - we see text first before we see images etc.
A browser parses and interprets the tags anyway, why no use it to determine loading sequence ?
Comments ?
badari
badari
--
Badari Devalla
2-4534(O)/2-9613(H)
www.cs.tamu.edu/people/badari
"Don't put it in the trash, put it in the department lounge" -CS Anonymous
John BigDog Cunningham
On 7 Feb 1998 22:12:41 GMT, bad...@cs.tamu.edu (Badari Devalla) wrote:
> Present day browsers do
>seem to use some loading sequence - we see text first before we see images etc.
>
As far as I can tell, the only reason you see text before images is
that the browser loads the entire html document first. This is not
because it is told to do it in that order, but because it does not
know about the images until the html doc has been downloaded.
I like the idea of being able to order image priority. Perhaps a tag
that would go within the <img> tag, and set priority. Images that
make up a menu bar could be tagged first priority, whereas useless
images could be tagged last. This should be suggested to the www
consortium.
-BigDog
Dave Martin
In article <34dd0dc8...@news.tamu.edu>, flowm...@tamu.SPAMSUX.edu
(John "BigDog" Cunningham) wrote:
} As far as I can tell, the only reason you see text before images is
} that the browser loads the entire html document first. This is not
} because it is told to do it in that order, but because it does not
} know about the images until the html doc has been downloaded.
Of course, failure to include height and width option values in your IMG
tags will cause the text to not be displayed until the image has loaded.
Text will appear rather quickly if images have their size information
included, since the browser can go ahead and lay out the page. Otherwise,
it must wait (not sure why none of them seem to adjust the layout as things
load anymore--didn't Mosaic do this?).
Tables, especially with images lacking size information, can also prevent
rapid display of text. These techniques are often used on PURPOSE. Note how
many pages load the animated advertisement at the top of the page, then
seem to take forever before actual content appears. You then have nothing
to look at except the advertisement, and you can't scroll down to avoid it
since the table hasn't finished loading for the browser to generate the
layout.
} I like the idea of being able to order image priority. Perhaps a tag
} that would go within the <img> tag, and set priority. Images that
} make up a menu bar could be tagged first priority, whereas useless
} images could be tagged last. This should be suggested to the www
} consortium.
While such a priority thing would be nice, do you actually think that sites
using ads would set the ad at a low priority (if they even use the option)?
Heck, they'd probably sell ad space based on the assigned priority
level--pay enough, and we'll make your graphic load first, otherwise it
might never get seen by the user...
--
* Dave Martin * macdave(a)tamu.edu or dbm(a)aol.com * Texas A&M *
John BigDog Cunningham
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:56:43 -0600, mac...@tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
wrote:
>
>While such a priority thing would be nice, do you actually think that sites
>using ads would set the ad at a low priority (if they even use the option)?
>Heck, they'd probably sell ad space based on the assigned priority
>level--pay enough, and we'll make your graphic load first, otherwise it
>might never get seen by the user...
This idea was not concerning ads. It was concerning the useless
images, animated gifs, etc. that have no navigation or content
purpose. Many Quake pages have little running guys in the corner that
are not links, or even useful. These (for example) could be loaded
last.
I never said that advertisements should take last place. Remember,
the web is a medium, which must be paid for. Web servers are not free
(at least, not the good ones), and if you want to see the best
information, in the most entertaining way, you have to put up with
advertisements. If TV didn't have ads, we'd all be paying to get the
networks. If magazines didn't have ads they would be $20 a piece. If
there were no ads on the Web every good site would be a pay site
(Price Watch, IMDB, UnitedMedia Comics are all sites I use daily,
which are free becuase people advertise on them). If I, as a
webmaster, could squeeze more pennies out of the advertisers my
threatening to put their ad on last priority, I sure as hell would.
This would allow me to put more money into my site and provide better
content.
Using tricks to make banner ads pop up first is no new game, I see it
all over the web. Think of it as the commercial that interupts your
favorite episode of Seinfeld, or X-files. It's boring and stupid, but
you have to put up with it because somebody paid a lot of money to
force it into your living room, and that's the money that makes the
web possible. At least most banner ads are either funny or offer some
kind of contest. Heck, I won a mug from Riven because of one of those
ads.
As far as alt and size tags within the <IMG> tag, it should be
considered a necessity. If all the images are loaded up (size wise)
and the alt tags are there, navigation should be simple, and people
can stop the apge loading at that time. It should be considered the
sign of a good web.
__________________________
John "BigDog" Cunningham
big...@slamdesigns.com
http://www.slamdesigns.com
Badari Devalla
In article <34e89a75....@news.tamu.edu>,
John "BigDog" Cunningham <flowm...@tamu.SPAMSUX.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:56:43 -0600, mac...@tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>While such a priority thing would be nice, do you actually think that sites
>>using ads would set the ad at a low priority (if they even use the option)?
>>Heck, they'd probably sell ad space based on the assigned priority
>>level--pay enough, and we'll make your graphic load first, otherwise it
>>might never get seen by the user...
>
>This idea was not concerning ads. It was concerning the useless
>images, animated gifs, etc. that have no navigation or content
>purpose. Many Quake pages have little running guys in the corner that
>are not links, or even useful. These (for example) could be loaded
>last.
>
I have received quite a few replies to my original post and I now
seem to understand the html doc loading process.
My interest and suggestion have to do with something different - I work
in performance guarantees and I think it'd be neat if a browser could
open multiple connections (at different bandwidths when RSVP/ATM becomes
a reality to the desktop) and download the different "tags" into a local
cache and then display the doc - then I heard that newer versions of httpd
are actually trying to multiplex all browser requests into one persistent
http/tcp/udp pipe to reduce the overhead of connection set-up. Oh well.....
badari
--
Badari Devalla
2-4534(O)/2-9613(H)
www.cs.tamu.edu/people/badari
Web Haiku (Anon):
Stay the patient course
Of little worth is your ire
The network is down
Dave Martin
In article <34e89a75....@news.tamu.edu>, flowm...@tamu.SPAMSUX.edu
(John "BigDog" Cunningham) wrote:
} This idea was not concerning ads. It was concerning the useless
} images, animated gifs, etc. that have no navigation or content
} purpose. Many Quake pages have little running guys in the corner that
} are not links, or even useful. These (for example) could be loaded
} last.
OK, I thought part of what you were suggesting was due to advertisements.
Even still, do you think that those using all these useless animated gifs
and such would bother putting in a priority option on these images? Most
don't use the alt or height/width options as it is (unless inserted
automatically by their web page editor, so they never see a bit of HTML).
} I never said that advertisements should take last place. Remember,
} the web is a medium, which must be paid for. Web servers are not free
} (at least, not the good ones), and if you want to see the best
} information, in the most entertaining way, you have to put up with
} advertisements.
I just don't like to see the internet turn into another bastion of
commercialism, when it used to be just fine without the ads. When
individuals have advertisements all over their personal pages, you know
it's gone too far. I suppose I'm mourning the near-fatal wounding of the
information age. I've seen the 'net go from having great informational
potential, to its current state where you have to watch an ad before you
can even attempt to find the information. It's rather disappointing,
actually.
} At least most banner ads are either funny or offer some
} kind of contest.
I certainly haven't seen such a trend, at least when I can't avoid viewing
the ad. Nor do I trust those contests, either. There are enough morons
using unethical means to gather email addresses for spam as it is (heck,
I'll probably get another few bits of garbage just for posting this). But
that's me; if you've actually received something from one of these
contests, then I'll take your word on the contests being somewhat legit.
Won't make me like advertisements on the web, though.
} As far as alt and size tags within the <IMG> tag, it should be
} considered a necessity. If all the images are loaded up (size wise)
} and the alt tags are there, navigation should be simple, and people
} can stop the apge loading at that time. It should be considered the
} sign of a good web.
Unfortunately even this isn't necessarily true. Not sure how IE handles
unloaded images, but Netscape feels the need to put that big icon in the
top left corner first, and THEN display the alt text. If the icon doesn't
leave enough room for the text, you don't get the text. Also, unless you
have "load images" turned off, Netscape 4.x won't let you click on a linked
image until the image has been completely loaded. If you cancel,
half-loaded "buttons" won't work. Don't know if Netscape 3.x had this "bug"
or not; 2.x did not.
But yes, using the size and alt text options improves things a great deal
(in most cases). Though, of course, they do add to the overall load time
for the page--not much, but if you have lots of images, all with size and
alt info, it can add up fast.
John BigDog Cunningham
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:33:54 -0600, mac...@tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
wrote:
>In article <34e89a75....@news.tamu.edu>, flowm...@tamu.SPAMSUX.edu
>(John "BigDog" Cunningham) wrote:
>} This idea was not concerning ads. It was concerning the useless
>} images, animated gifs, etc. that have no navigation or content
>} purpose. Many Quake pages have little running guys in the corner that
>} are not links, or even useful. These (for example) could be loaded
>} last.
>
>OK, I thought part of what you were suggesting was due to advertisements.
>Even still, do you think that those using all these useless animated gifs
>and such would bother putting in a priority option on these images? Most
>don't use the alt or height/width options as it is (unless inserted
>automatically by their web page editor, so they never see a bit of HTML).
>
Unfortunatly, WYSIWYG editors are taking over, there are a few of us
proud code-hackers still out there (it's not like HTML is difficult,
it's a layout language for pete's sake). Some of the better WYSIWYGs
do put in size tags, but for those who do hack out thier own code, it
should be considered just another part of the <IMG> tag that is
neccessary to make the image work.
>I just don't like to see the internet turn into another bastion of
>commercialism, when it used to be just fine without the ads. When
>individuals have advertisements all over their personal pages, you know
>it's gone too far. I suppose I'm mourning the near-fatal wounding of the
>information age. I've seen the 'net go from having great informational
>potential, to its current state where you have to watch an ad before you
>can even attempt to find the information. It's rather disappointing,
>actually.
I hate to see ads on personal pages as well, and it's pitiful when you
can't even get good porn (*snicker*) without going through 2 or 3
pages of pure banner ads. When I talk about Ads being a necessity, I
mean on pages such as the Wall Street Journal, Yahoo!, and IMDB.
These are huge commercial sites that make most of their money from
ads, because the advertisers know that people got there (WSJ,
admitedly, charges for anything more than the front page, but it is
only a suppliment, as there are ads all over the WSJ web). Personal
web pages have taken a plunge since the web started up, or at least
have not caught up. Most people put up things like "this is me, click
on me for a bigger picture. This is my cat, fluffy". It sounds like
Ralph from "The Simpsons". My girlfriend has one such page, and even
has banner ads for "Titanic", just becuase shhe liked the movie (she
is not getting paid). I think the appearance of ads on personal pages
shows that people want their pages to look more mainstream.
Personally, tho, it makes me sick.
>} At least most banner ads are either funny or offer some
>} kind of contest.
>
>I certainly haven't seen such a trend, at least when I can't avoid viewing
>the ad. Nor do I trust those contests, either. There are enough morons
>using unethical means to gather email addresses for spam as it is (heck,
>I'll probably get another few bits of garbage just for posting this). But
>that's me; if you've actually received something from one of these
>contests, then I'll take your word on the contests being somewhat legit.
>Won't make me like advertisements on the web, though.
>
(*Smiles as he drinks coffee from his Rivn mug*)
>} As far as alt and size tags within the <IMG> tag, it should be
>} considered a necessity. If all the images are loaded up (size wise)
>} and the alt tags are there, navigation should be simple, and people
>} can stop the apge loading at that time. It should be considered the
>} sign of a good web.
>
>Unfortunately even this isn't necessarily true. Not sure how IE handles
>unloaded images, but Netscape feels the need to put that big icon in the
>top left corner first, and THEN display the alt text. If the icon doesn't
>leave enough room for the text, you don't get the text. Also, unless you
>have "load images" turned off, Netscape 4.x won't let you click on a linked
>image until the image has been completely loaded. If you cancel,
>half-loaded "buttons" won't work. Don't know if Netscape 3.x had this "bug"
>or not; 2.x did not.
>
In most cases, I've seen netscape load up the box for the image ahead
of time, and if there is no image, or the image is too small,
mousing-over the image will display the alt tag (in fact, I think it
does this even when the image is up).
>But yes, using the size and alt text options improves things a great deal
>(in most cases). Though, of course, they do add to the overall load time
>for the page--not much, but if you have lots of images, all with size and
>alt info, it can add up fast.
If you have that many images, you're not worried about load time
anyway, and you should be shot.