| 2:42 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Page weight is the page itself plus any related external elements -- images, scripts and CSS. So the page weight of your example is 45K.
Considering that most people are still on dialup, you should probably stay as close to Brett's recommendations as you can. While affordable broadband availability has greatly increase, it still has not reached the ~80% that would justify a broadband design strategy.
But as with anything dealing with web development, KNOW YOUR TARGET AUDIANCE!
| 4:12 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'd assume a number like 5-15K is most likely a recommendation for the html alone -- made with ranking on search engines in mind, so the external files don't enter into the picture.
When I design for dial up users, I aim for a total page weight of 40 to 50k, including all external files (images, scripts, css) -- but with modem compression being so good today, a bit more here and there has not proved to be the same kind of problem it was ten years ago.
I have one client where the audience expects lots of product images on one page. We've got their pages around 150K total weight and they are thriving. But, their competition weighs in at 350 to 400, so I still think that minimizing page weight gives an advantage. When this client's pages grow to near 200 kb the stats start to suffer, even though conventional wisdom says this audience expects fat pages.
| 4:54 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
o.k. I have a page that its total weight is 51K but, when I include the background image it brings it to 108K. What are your thoughts on this? My target audience will be on both dial-up and broadband.
| 5:07 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If the background image is decorative and not functional, you'll probably be OK. I would still suggest finding an any economies you might have overlooked. And I would hope this isn't a "landing page" of some kind, a potential first page viewed. If it is, I would put it on a diet for maximum results.
How does the page load? Do you get some good, usable text content within a couple seconds, and then the images start to fill in later? The big deal is usable information, visible within a few seconds. If the rest of the page needs a bit longer to download, that's OK. But if nothing at all shows up after 6-8 seconds, I would rethink the page.
| 5:11 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So your background image is as important as your content then? Somehow I doubt it.
If you realy can't live without the image I'd look into optimising your image further. Remember it is just the background.
| 5:27 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Actually it is the landing page. The text content appears first then the images fill in fairly quickly. The Background image appears later but, the rest of the page is usable while it is loading. What size would you recommend for a landing page?
| 6:34 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
57K is huge for a background image. I would recommend finding a way to reduce it as much as you can.
Is it a JPEG? Increasing the compression ratio until the background begins to show signs of degrading. Is it a GIF image? Convert it to PNG instead. Is it horizontal or vertical gradient? Reduce the height or width down to 1 or 2 pixels (the minimum necessary to achieve the desired effect. Does it reproduce a left boarder with a large section of "white space" in order to prevent the board from repeating on the right? Cut out the "white space" and use CSS to only repeat the background vertically (background-repeat: repeat-y). Is it a picture? Then consider using something else as a background image.
| 6:41 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My background image is a .png it is a picture of my logo in grayscale. I have been web building for 1 year now but, I think I am just learning the right way to do things. "Just because a webpage looks really nice doesn't mean a thing." Am I correct with this philosophy? I have original content and feel good about the direction of the site but, I am working through the wrinkles with the designs. Right now I have extravagant but, catchy. I think I need to go to simple and catchy. Is this right?
| 7:21 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You should be able to reduce that significantly -- try only 8 shades of gray, 16 as a max.
|Just because a webpage looks really nice doesn't mean a thing |
I agree so very much with that idea. My way of saying it is "slick ain't sticky".
| 6:53 pm on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sticky me for deatails on the best image compressor I have ever come across-no- I don't get anything for it. Just amazed at it's speed and usability without losing quality.