Best Page Size Revisited

is 40K passe?

[vmills]

Are you working with any target page sizes when developing new sites? It used to be 40K was the standard target, but these days lots of users have broadband (at work if not at home). Obviously, faster is better, but there is sometimes a trade-off with the impact graphics can give. I know, too, that a lot will depend on the target market, but what I'm after is general standards.

Is there a range of sizes for: Best ¦ OK ¦ Might Get Away With It ¦ You're Hurting Yourself?

I did a search for this topic and couldn't find any recent threads. I'm curious whether thinking has changed on this over the past year.

[MatthewHSE]

My rule of thumb is the smaller the better. But I don't skimp on the graphics, either. By using a CSS layout, I'm able to get the content to display first, almost immediately. Then graphics can load later. By specifying widths and heights, there's not even any "jumping" of text on the page.

[buckworks]

Remember that even if broadband use is growing, many areas still only have dialup. It pays to make sure your site is comfortable to use on a slow connection, because rural residents are often better prospects for ordering online than a highspeed user who lives a short drive away from a shopping mall.

I spend part of the year in an area which only has dialup, and some sites are absolutely crazy-making on a slow connection. A certain store is one of my favourite places to shop when I'm in the city, but when I'm in the country and shopping online they lose my business because the sluggishness of their site drives me nuts. I spend my money with their competitors who have clearly paid more attention to the needs -- and the business potential -- of dialup users. I suspect I'm not alone.

[jo1ene]

I would say:

40K great

50K fine for most folks

60K get away with it if content loads first (home page only, keep content pages lighter or reloading most of the graphics)

70K for certain target industries, usually on broadband (ex. ad agencies)

[vmills]

Thanks for the replies. There are a lot of factors relating to download speed, but I'm really looking for numbers. It's a way for me to know when I'm getting into the danger zone. Do you have a threshold size beyond which you will not go? 75K? 100K?

[piskie]

Here in the UK, well over 50% (estimates vary) but 70% is maybe the proportion of Dialup visitors to a typical joe public web sit.

Specialist sites that get mainly professionals visit, information seeking etc will probably get the inverse of this.

Either way, the number of visitors limited by dialup speed is either significant or very significant and your starter limit of 40k is a good target for a cooking page. If however a page has lots of information including important images or other media then the 40k ceiling must be ignored to perform the essential function of conveying information and detail for the visitor.

If the visitor is knowledgeable and using a dialup, they will know that their requested information will take time to come in.

In short a sensible limit of about 40k is a good thing but it must not prevent serving up detailed content when (but only when)it is needed.

Expecting comprehensive detail and getting a compressed 40k compromise can be worse than a slightly longer page load.

Many might dissagree with this approach but it's the way I structure sites and looking through log files in detail at paths through the site, aborted page loads etc, it seems to work without any obvious snags.

[MatthewHSE]

Don't overlook compression technologies. I use mod_gzip, which sends the HTML of my homepage at just 4kb, instead of the 13.6kb it would be without compression. If your site depends on a snazzy appearance and you need graphics, you can fit in a couple pretty decent gifs for the savings that compression gives you.