Website loading or quality?

Do users prefer Website quality over loading...

[sderenzi]

I've designed a Website using Javascript (for pop-up windows), Flash (my menu bar), and CSS (for the .htm files). My question is because it has all these it does take some time to load. Should I consider increasing load time by sacraficing the quality of the site? For example I might replace my Flash Navbar with a CSS one. Also I could erase some of the .gif images used. All that would serve to decrease the load time, but it would kinda make the feel lessened.

Thanks, Sam.

[benihana]

if it takes too long to load, it doesnt matter about the quality - theyll back up and they wont see it.

[treeline]

Faster load time is by definition increasing Quality. If it loads really slow, it's poor quality. A bunch of javascript, rollovers, etc. really tends to slow things down. There's always a way to make it better and faster.

[benihana]

If it loads really slow, it's poor quality

no.

there are some amazing sites out there that are only really practical for broad band users. unfortunately this is not an option for most designers.

[sderenzi]

I use to think I would design my entire site in Flash, then I could just use a preloader. I have seen preloading for .htm pages, in fact I think it was some sort of javascript thing. Would anyone here know whether Flash or Javascript can be using to preload somehow?

[benihana]

you can do preloaders in flash quite easily, but youll have other issues doing a full site this way , e.g. lack of search engine visibility, limited accessibility, people rquire a plugin.

[Andrey]

I don't think that replacing flash navigation with CSS and removing pop-ups is reducing the quality of your website. On the contrary, faster loading site with less annoying features will be a much better place to visit. Besides that will also improve your search engines ranking so both sides benefit here.

Best Regards,
Andrey

[willybfriendly]

I tend to surf with JS disabled, and I do not have Flash loaded on my main machine. I am not alone in this.

Would your site appear high quality if I were to visit it?

WBF

[JasonHamilton]

I've found very few websites designed in flash that actually needed to be done in flash.

[ControlEngineer]

...amazing sites out there that are only really practical for broad band users....

Amazing does not equal quality. Many sites have amazingly low quality.

I cannot understand why flash would be used for menu bars. The worst use of flash is as the opening for a web site, where you see an animation of the company logo before entering the site. Most views simply go elsewhere, even if there is a bypass link.

Keep in mind that many people who normally have a high speed connection at their office desk may be using their laptop at a hotel where the maximum effective speed is usually 26K or less due to the hotel phone system.

There are very few circumstance that should lead to a site that is practical for broad band users only. Over use of flash (some would say any use is over use) not only creates a load time problem but generally decreases the quality of the site in other ways. Using too much flash can give a site the cheap whorehouse look.

Dolly Parton jokes about it costs so much to look so cheap. In web design it takes work and features to look cheap.

[benihana]

sorry if my turn of phrase confused you ControlEngineer.

when i said amazing, i meant of extremely high quality.

[ControlEngineer]

when i said amazing, i meant of extremely high quality

Were they a type of site that would only be used by someone with broadband? Speed of loading should be considered part of the definition of quality.

There are a few exceptions, that usually apply only to a few pages of a site.

[hannamyluv]

I have found that many designers equate pretty to quality. This is not the case. 9 out of 10 times on the web, pretty = poorly done because the designer spent more time making the site look pretty than s/he did making the site work well.

I'm not saying that sderenzi's site is poor quality. He may be one of those rare designers that can pull off both quality and pretty. But I do have to say, if you are worried about download time, chances are you have too many pretty things and not enough thought out things. Take a good look at your site. How many things do you have that are for the user's real experience or are you just showing off what you can do? Do you really need that graphic, does it serve some other purpose than looking spiffy? Is the Flash navigation really the best way to go? The answers are your's to find, just be honest with yourself about them.

Personally, I don't care how amazing a site is. Only 40% of people have access to broadband (that means at work too). Sites that alienate a large base of users just to try to impress someone is not quality. A few pages are okay. A whole site is not.

[ken_b]

Load speed, site/page quality, and effective design are all part of the same project.

Balancing them so that you reach your target audience, and they are happy with what they findon your site, is what matters.

[wavebird23]

This may not be very practical, but you could have a start page on your site that has links for people with dial-up to enter a seperate site, that only includes text and small images.