The thread below discusses the possibility of increasing the thumbnail size. I actually like that idea, but as someone who recently come from dialup, I would find that to be a large increase in download time, unless the number of thumbnails was reduced. Dialup can be a fairly brutal way of surfing the way, especially if it the only ooption available to you.
So here is a question: how, and how fast, are you connected to the internet.
A secondary question would be for those of you with commercial or semicommercial websites: What assumptions have you made with the internet connection for the customers you are marketing to? Was dialup/old browser resoution taken into consideration during the design of the site?
I'll answer it for myself. I recently moved to a midspeed DSL service. My website was put together assuming dialup, so the filesizes where pretty small with mid to high jpeg compression. It still bothers me the number of thumbnails on some of the pages as it will take up to 2 minutes to completely upload all of the thumbnails. I am currently rethinking this, but have other priorities at the current moment to really spend the time on it.
I've always build my websites with dialup and low screen resolution in the back of my head. but i have to admit i pay lesser attention to it these days.
How many serious buyers of nature photography are running old versions browsers on dial-up connections? According to recent studies only 10% of US users (15% if you count only rural users) are running on dial-up. By all reports Europe is ahead of the US on broadband access. I don't mean to minimize the problem that those on dial-up face when confronted with image heavy sites but we are trying to market our work and I'm in favor of presenting it in the most effective way to the largest audience that is likely to buy it or pay me/us to do more. Aiming the site at the 10% with dial-up doesn't seem like an effective strategy unless it has been shown that is where the market is vs the 90% on broadband. And do the larger thumbnails on the wallpaper page really slow a dial-up connection significantly compared to the ones in the portfolios? I live in a rural are and have had cable for the last 6 years so perhaps my memory of dial-up is too faded to appreciate the plight of those on it.
I personally have a cable modem drop that is very fast so the file sizes on most commercial sites is not noticeable. I also agree that folks using dialup are most likely using it for email access and not surfing the net for fine art prints to purchase--Larry
Although I'm in metro Phoenix I'm still on dial-up and am happy if I can run at 40Kbps. Cox cable is the only serious option for high speed, but they have a lousy reputation for availability and customer service when I talk about them with friends who use Cox.
I detest web sites that front load the site with massive files, and I don't bother looking at them when I see how slow they load.
I keep the size of image files under 200KB on my own web pages, and limit the number of thumbnails in a gallery page to 20 max. That's barely tolerable on my dial up line but a delight on a high speed line when I'm out somewhere.
Satellite internet is available all over the country (world?). Since I live in a rural area with only poor dial-up available I got satellite internet years ago. It is extremely reliable, fast and convenient. Only trouble is when there is a really heavy storm cloud in the way, but that usually lasts only a few minutes and happens rarely. I got it through earthlink.net, but they have stopped offering the satellite service so you can go with WildBlue, DirectTV wireless or DishnetWireless and can usually keep your same e-mail address. WildBlue currently has a discount offer for something like $40 per month.
Discussion
5 repliesSo here is a question: how, and how fast, are you connected to the internet.
A secondary question would be for those of you with commercial or semicommercial websites: What assumptions have you made with the internet connection for the customers you are marketing to? Was dialup/old browser resoution taken into consideration during the design of the site?
I'll answer it for myself. I recently moved to a midspeed DSL service. My website was put together assuming dialup, so the filesizes where pretty small with mid to high jpeg compression. It still bothers me the number of thumbnails on some of the pages as it will take up to 2 minutes to completely upload all of the thumbnails. I am currently rethinking this, but have other priorities at the current moment to really spend the time on it.
I've always build my websites with dialup and low screen resolution in the back of my head. but i have to admit i pay lesser attention to it these days.
I detest web sites that front load the site with massive files, and I don't bother looking at them when I see how slow they load.
I keep the size of image files under 200KB on my own web pages, and limit the number of thumbnails in a gallery page to 20 max. That's barely tolerable on my dial up line but a delight on a high speed line when I'm out somewhere.