I need a dialup users review on speed

[Bryan G]

You can rip on my site if you want, but I'm really just interested in how long it takes for the main page to load with dial-up.

I know it's graphic intensive, but I like the result.
I made it as wc3 compliant as possible, but I like tables for layout.
The javascript errors are the fault of the hosts tag, I didn't write it.
I have not taken the time to make the sub page w3c compliant yet.
AND I know I don't have "alt" for the images, not sure what to put there yet, but I'll work on that.
I'm doing this site for free, so I don't want to put much more time into it.
Like I said, I'm mainly curious about how slow does it load for dial-up.


http://waianaesda.org/

[sebastianrs]

though i cant tell you how long it would take for a dial up user, i can tell you that your three images are VERY big in size... you could optimize them in no time to approx. half as much!

[Bryan G]

though i cant tell you how long it would take for a dial up user, i can tell you that your three images are VERY big in size... you could optimize them in no time to approx. half as much!
they are optimized, i don't dare do the main one on the left anymore, if you look at the sky by the branches you can see distortion allready taking place. Also I was afraid to optimize the one on the right, for fear the text would get distorted, I could just make the scroll a background, but then I can't use that font.........i dont' know, I think I'll have to do something, but I dont' want to loose this look.....

[sebastianrs]

i just optimized the images and they reached about half as much of the size as before!! and a dialup user might prolly suffer from downloading your big images! what program are you using to create and optimize your images?

[72newbie]

loads ok vs many other sites on 26.4, it meets my criteria for loadability.

[Bryan G]

i just optimized the images and they reached about half as much of the size as before!! and a dialup user might prolly suffer from downloading your big images! what program are you using to create and optimize your images?
I use photoshop, and use the "save for the web". What did you use? maybe there is something better or if it was photoshop, what setting did you use?

[Bryan G]

loads ok vs many other sites on 26.4, it meets my criteria for loadability.
that's good to hear, I'm going to try and optimize the images further, but if they looses clarity I can be comfortable with them as is. thanx.

[LJK]

Hi -
About 30 seconds for me...not terrible.

El

[sebastianrs]

About 30 seconds for me...not terrible.
but actually way to much to attract every visitor. LJK might have been a little patient ;)
i use customized settings in photoshop.. e.g. i never use a jpeg quality higher than 60 for the web!

[nadamt]

Check out this web page analyzer (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/). The goal is to get the site to load in under eight seconds on a 56K modem. Right now you're pushing thirty-five.

[Bryan G]

but actually way to much to attract every visitor. LJK might have been a little patient ;)
i use customized settings in photoshop.. e.g. i never use a jpeg quality higher than 60 for the web!
That's the same setting I usually use for larger images, if it's under 15k I'll go maximum. I'm going to go back to the original photos and re-do them in case I went higher than 60 for some reason.
Thank you :)


Check out this web page analyzer (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/). The goal is to get the site to load in under eight seconds on a 56K modem. Right now you're pushing thirty-five.
I know I'll never get under 8 seconds, but over 30 is too much. Thanx for that link, I'll be making good use of it.

I'll have to make some changes....
I want to thank everyone for their comments. ;)

[felgall]

Add together all of the file sizes of the HTML, scripts, images etc that make up the page. If the total is over 80k then the page it too big. An 80k page ill load in about 30 seconds on dialup.