Page Loading . . .
Hi, I again hope this is in the right section to ask this . . .
On my website, the average page size is perhaps around 20KB or so. I've made sure to have my website very simple in coding and nearly everything . . .
The pages load nearly instantly, which is what I've always aimed for.
Now for the question, I've had to put some pages (and more coming up) that are actually over 100KB and of course the pages don't load as fast as the others.
The pages are . . . nearly all text, with of course the exception of the background, logo, and one other image.
I was wondering . . .
Is there a way to speed up the loading of those pages? My computer and connection is fairly fast (and the pages load at most, about 2 seconds), but I like to take into consideration older computers, and really slow connection speeds (as well as older browsers).
I thought I might've seen a few pages that loaded and one could start reading, while it was still loading . . . Does that make sense? Right now my pages' text, loads all at once, but I thought I might've seen a few pages that might've had the page loading in parts. To where you see the page, but you can tell it is still loading because the sidebar gets smaller . . . yet you are still able to view and start using and reading the page.
Is any of this understandable? Lol, If so, would anyone be able to supply me with the way it is done? If it's not, then let me know and I'll try to explain it better . . .
Thanks much for your help!
Okay, I've thought of this . . . Would putting sections of the page into separate rows and sections in a table, instead of having the page in one huge section of the table. Would that work?
I tried that on a test page, and couldn't see much difference at all, but I was told by others . . . that there was a "huge" difference. Does anyone know if this works?
Well, why not use CSS? a series of <div> with a suitable margin-bottom would be one way to do break up the page. Don't for get to use h2 to headline major sections of the text.
Sounds to me like your pages are all too big - It is definately the fact that you are using tables instead of CSS <Divs>.
Also how big is your Background image?
"What does'nt kill us only makes us stronger!"
"The Shadowy Boulder May Harbour a Crouching Tiger, Giant Tree Roots May Shelter a Hidden Dragon"
Well, I've tried to get my website to be mostly as basic of HTML as I can get, so that those who browse with even the earliest of browsers, may still find my website accessable and looking (for the most part) as I intend it to look.
As for using CSS . . . well I don't know much about CSS . . . honestly I basically only know as far as being able to define tags. But that's about it. I had thought that the older browsers didn't always register CSS, so I tried to avoid it by simply forcing everything, and using basic HTML. I use Tables for the layout, though in honesty I believe I heard that some browsers don't work with tables well? Not sure, but that is what I use.
If you'd like, you can take a look at my website here:
Workmen For Christ Ministries
Yes, It's a ministry website
The pages that I've mentioned, can be found here:
And this is the "Test Page" that I mentioned, using the tables to try to speed things up and make it "appear" to load faster by loading the chapters separately (it's the "Matthew" page, formatted differently):
Thanks for the continued help!
Last edited by HS77; 08-26-2005 at 11:42 AM.
NS4 and IE4 partially support CSS1. Newer versions have better support, though IE6 still doesn't support nearly as much CSS2 as Firefox, NS6+, Opera 7+, Konqueror, and Safari. IE4 will be 8 in a month and a half.
Why do you want to support browsers that almost no one uses?
You should fix your HTML errors and learn and use CSS.
Well, I'm taking those early browsers into consideration because I actually know a handful of people who use those early browsers Not very many use them, but I still do not wish to exclude the minority. Of course realizing that there are some things that need newer code, but if I can help it, I try to limit it as best I can.
I don't mind doing a little extra work to make sure that the pages are as accessible as can be . . . and I don't mind if the website doesn't flash . . . Of course all within reason lol, it still has to look decent.
Thanks for getting those errors for me, I had used something to help find errors before, but then I never did get to go through them all. (Not to mention I let my thoughts get away and decided to try something out that caused probably most of those errors)
That's an awful of of text you are putting on per page - a lot of scrolling - even on my 1400x1050 screen. If you are catering for IE4 users, I guess it's because they are using old computers with lower resolution monitors. So for them the scrolling must be even worse.
I'd think about splitting up the chapters into smaller chunks. At the very least, I'd throw in some anchors to provide quick access to specific points - and back to the top.
Where is it that people get this stupid idea? <div> WAS AROUND BEFORE CSS. One of the main ideas of CSS, and standards coding is to use semantic markup: to mark things up as to what they are, to improve accessibility, and let browsers better do their job. Why would you EVER use a margined div for a paragraph, when you could just mark it up as for what it is (a paragraph: <p>), and let the browser's default stylings handle it?
Originally Posted by kiwibrit
If there's a lot of text, there's a good chance the code can be made VERY minimalist for it. HTML is best used to markup documents such as the ones you're describing. Large documents will always take a moment to load, but it seems if you cut out all the uneccessary, messy, and crappy table markup, the browser might be able to draw it a bit faster.
Er, fair points. I was a bit tired when I wrote my first thoughts. I was pondering a reasonable way of breaking up huge lumps of text - we didn't have HS77's URL at that stage. So I had to guess at what was there. In large text blocks, sometimes <p> doesn't really cut it. But then the odd <br> will do the job.
Best not to have such a mammoth text block in a page in the first place, in my view. If a long document is a must, I tend to offer it as a pdf for download.
Mind you, is one then infringing accessibility?
(Sorry for being bratty in my last post, heheh. :$)
As for "<p> doesn't cut it..." No. <br> is only valid when the line breaks are part of the document (e.g. poetry). If they're paragraphs, they should be marked up as such.
As for PDFs? Thay's a touchy subject. I'm strongly against them entirely. They take LONGER to load than a large HTML document would, often crash my browser, require me to download a certain tool (HTML can be viewed in a number of browsers, open source, if you will), severely impair usability, and are just plain annoying.
As Ben said, PDFs require special software and take longer to load -- thus they are annoying. Flash is the same in those regards. I don't like PDFs or Flash much.
PDFs are good when you want to print a document, but normal web pages are much more accessible and usable if you just want to read the information on the screen.
Interesting comment. Amongst the businesses we deal with, I think all have Acrobat Reader installed as a matter of course. Must admit, I now expect that all viewers of our company site - which is very much targeted at trade users - will have it installed (though I include links for the Reader download if need be). We use PDF primarily for things like electric wiring diagrams. I do not offer pdf as a primary page - just as a download if required. I cannot remember one ever crashing my browser, or a complaint from a customer.
Returning to long text web pages, such as used by HS77, I do not like large amounts of scrolling being needed for a page. Which is why I prefer downloadable documents, in such circumstances, instead. The near universality of PDF makes that a better format than, say, .doc files.
That makes no sense: you're going to have to scroll either way.
Well, I don't think high-text content have much place on the web. I believe most viewers do not want to scroll down many screen heights to see a page. I prefer to have what are, effectively, multi-page documents in pdf - where the layout is as intended by the author, and is easily printed. For our company site, that seems to be what our viewers think, too.
But one of the delights of the internet is that it is still a very free world. So we may happily differ, and do our own thing.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)