Site Ratings & Reviews - REQ - critique (esp. Modem Users!!)

Author

REQ - critique (esp. Modem Users!!)

rusty

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

Here's my site:

www.medical-breakthroughs.com

It's fairly heavy on graphics, so I'm a bit concerned about loading times
for modem users, especially of the home page and of the "introduction"
page - after that the banners should be cached by browsers.

I'd also invite comments from NN / Mozilla users since I designed primary
with IE in mind (I know the mobile nav-bar doesn't work in NN/mozilla).

I did freeze widths on certain tables (assuming a majority of visitors will
have 800-1000 pixel screens); let me know if this works for you.

all comments appreciated..

Rusty...

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

Quoth the raven named rusty:

quote:

> Here's my site:
>
> www.medical-breakthroughs.com
>
> It's fairly heavy on graphics, so I'm a bit concerned about loading times
> for modem users, especially of the home page and of the "introduction"
> page - after that the banners should be cached by browsers.

It took ten seconds or so to load on my 3Mbps connection. That's slow.

quote:

> I'd also invite comments from NN / Mozilla users since I designed primary
> with IE in mind (I know the mobile nav-bar doesn't work in NN/mozilla).

...or with JavaScript unavailable, in any browser.

function smoochMooch() ?? What is it supposed to do?

Some references for you:

http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview...throughs.com%2F

http://validator.w3.org/ Add your URL.

quote:

> I did freeze widths on certain tables (assuming a majority of visitors will
> have 800-1000 pixel screens); let me know if this works for you.

Most people have 800x600 or 1024x768 resolution monitors, but that is
not the question. The question is *browser window size* which can be
anything. (Mine is never maximized.) Think fluid.
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Bold, justified text is hard to read. Drop the justify at least.

You're using tables for layout. Presentation is not tabular data.
http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/al...#table-problems

I like the color combinations.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

quote:

> Quoth the raven named rusty:
>
>
>
> It took ten seconds or so to load on my 3Mbps connection. That's slow.
>
>
>
> ..or with JavaScript unavailable, in any browser.
>
> function smoochMooch() ?? What is it supposed to do?
>
> Some references for you:
>
> http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview...throughs.com%2F
>
>
> http://validator.w3.org/ Add your URL.
>
>
>
>
> Most people have 800x600 or 1024x768 resolution monitors, but that is
> not the question. The question is *browser window size* which can be
> anything. (Mine is never maximized.) Think fluid.
> http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Right. Have a look at:
http://www.mbstevens.com/test/snapshot5.png
(...will leave it up a couple of hours.)
Fluid layout is the only cure.
--
Cheers, m

Daniel Ruscoe

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

In article <EuTvb.126774$jy.109488@clgrps13>, rusty says...

quote:

> www.medical-breakthroughs.com

quote:

> I did freeze widths on certain tables (assuming a majority of visitors will
> have 800-1000 pixel screens); let me know if this works for you.

Actually, some of the TDs in your tables add up to 886px across. Your
800*600 visitors will see horizontal scrolling, while your 640*480 chaps
(both of them) will see more horizontal scrolling than vertical.

Of course, you really shouldn't be using tables for layout anyway.

I'm not going to argue with your choice of fixed-width because I believe
site designers should be free to specify the exact way they want their
pages to look. Doesn't always mean the pages will look that way, but
they can try.

Also, you can't really assume anything with the web. How do you know if
I'm viewing your site on my 17" monitor, 50" TV, or 7" LCD in the car?

Your moving menu doesn't work in Opera either, but that wouldn't be a
problem with a "Back to Top" link here and there, or text links at the
bottom of the pages.

On the plus side, the colour scheme works well, and you appear to have
coded by hand, which is my personal preference.

Look into CSS for layout and, if you're going to use fixed widths, try
to make it look reasonable at resolutions as low as 800*600. There are
still a fair amount of people who don't change it to a setting that
doesn't cause standard dialog boxes to fill half the screen.

--
Daniel Ruscoe
http://www.dualstone.co.uk
http://www.dannyruscoe.co.uk

Farlo

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

"rusty" <rusty@web555design.com> wrote:

quote:

> www.medical-breakthroughs.com

Welcome to the mid nineties ... Now BIGGER and BETTER. Okay, it's just
bigger - much bigger than 800x600, which is the resolution used by HALF YER
FREAKIN' AUDIENCE! LOL!! Great design! ROFL!

--
Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon

Toby A Inkster

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

rusty wrote:

quote:

> www.medical-breakthroughs.com

Total size of page is 80KB. Keep it to under 34KB as an ABSOLUTE maximum.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/sizelimits.html

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Clark Simmons

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

According to my HTML editor, estimated download time is 10.5 seconds at 56.6.

--
Regards, Clark in Round Rock Texas USA

http://xld.com
ISP Services, Recipes, Best Sellers, History, Humor, Current Issues, and Lots of
Free Stuff.

"rusty" <rusty@web555design.com> wrote in message
news:EuTvb.126774$jy.109488@clgrps13...

quote:

> Here's my site:
>
> www.medical-breakthroughs.com
>
> It's fairly heavy on graphics, so I'm a bit concerned about loading times
> for modem users, especially of the home page and of the "introduction"
> page - after that the banners should be cached by browsers.
>
> I'd also invite comments from NN / Mozilla users since I designed primary
> with IE in mind (I know the mobile nav-bar doesn't work in NN/mozilla).
>
> I did freeze widths on certain tables (assuming a majority of visitors will
> have 800-1000 pixel screens); let me know if this works for you.
>
> all comments appreciated..
>
> Rusty...
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 11/21/2003

Allen

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

rusty wrote:

quote:

> Here's my site:
>
> www.medical-breakthroughs.com
>
> It's fairly heavy on graphics, so I'm a bit concerned about loading times
> for modem users, especially of the home page and of the "introduction"
> page - after that the banners should be cached by browsers.
>
> I'd also invite comments from NN / Mozilla users since I designed primary
> with IE in mind (I know the mobile nav-bar doesn't work in NN/mozilla).
>
> I did freeze widths on certain tables (assuming a majority of visitors will
> have 800-1000 pixel screens); let me know if this works for you.
>
> all comments appreciated..
>
> Rusty...

I'll paste in the text of the webpage...

Introducing... The Encyclopedia of Medical Breakthroughs, New Research
Discoveries & Forbidden Cures Including Pain-Relief Treatments You Can?t Live
Without

Your Window Into the World of Miracle Medicine

Breakthroughs in Health and Medicine

Information from beyond the cutting edge... Tomorrows Medical Breakthroughs
Today!

Announcing the Availability Of A Medical Document That Will Revolutionize The
Way You Think About Your Body... And The Way You View The Fields of Health &
Medicine

Regularly $49.95 (USD) Now?For a Limited Time Only, Purchase The Encyclopedia of
Medical Breakthroughs at the Special Introductory Price of: $19.95 (USD)
____________

I put them out of order to help illustrate that this page is a series on one
liners -- zingers to convince the reader into buying the book. But seen
together without the benefit of visual embellishment, it is a mess.

So first, I would go back to square one and select only one 'zinger' line as
your headline and put SOME the rest of them into a describtive paragraph or two
that actually informs the reader what's inside the book. Why? Because those
one-liners don't say sh*t.

Once you've got your copy together, get an image of the book. It doesn't matter
if this is a spiral-bound, ugly book. Just show them the object you want them
to buy. And right next to it, have a 'Buy Now' button that works, and have a
'Buy PDF Now' button that works.

Make EVERYTHING smaller. Your book and the buy now buttons should be near the
top of the page. Drop the dynamic navigation menu because it occupies a huge
amount of page space. Notice how you had to create a negative-space area all
the way down the page to accommodate the navigation bar? Would you have done
that if this web page cost you $100 per square inch? Look at it this way:
consider philosophically that all the page space that a user with a 800x600
screen sees WITHOUT scrolling as costing you $100 per square inch, and all the
page the user sees after they scroll as no charge -- free to you.

Same thing with the picture clouds. You're not selling clouds, you're selling a
book. You don't have to embellish every single item on the page with
prettiness.

Also, every one-line zinger looks different. Try and solidify the look of the
site with consistency of color, size and font attributes. I like the choice of
blue and gold and white for the site colors. You can make the whole thing with
these colors, dropping red, light blue and light yellow where it appears
elsewhere in a few places. You should also not use bold for every piece of
text.

Every page in the site should have a way for the reader to 'buy now' near the
top. Your buy now link doesn't have to be large or garish, but it should be on
every page. My browser title bar should say the name of the book instead of
"Medical-Breakthroughs: Breakthroughs in Health and Medicine".

Also, I downloaded the free-sample pdf file and got this error message when I
viewed it with GhostView:

**** This file has a corrupted %%EOF marker, or garbage after the %%EOF.
**** The file was produced by Corel PDF Engine Version 10.517:
**** please notify the author of this software
**** that the file does not conform to Adobe's published PDF
**** specification. Processing of the file will continue normally.

Good luck with the book!

picayunish

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

Clark Simmons wrote in news:bpqvj0$1r3o5t$1@ID-76126.news.uni-berlin.de:

quote:

> According to my HTML editor, estimated download time is 10.5 seconds at
> 56.6.

Huh!
Do you mean browser ?
--
Edwin van der Vaart
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Underconstruction

Barefoot Kid

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

"picayunish" <e_vdvaart@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:d0awb.4665$%W3.22236@amstwist00...
| Clark Simmons wrote in news:bpqvj0$1r3o5t$1@ID-76126.news.uni-berlin.de:
| > According to my HTML editor, estimated download time is 10.5 seconds at
| > 56.6.
|
| Huh!
| Do you mean browser ?

some html editors give u an estimation on how long it takes to download a page at different
connection speeds
---------------------------------------------------
Hung Diep
New Media Designer
www.intro-spect.co.uk
0795 6576 319

Clark Simmons

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

No, I said and meant my HTML editor, Homesite.

--
Regards, Clark in Round Rock Texas USA

http://xld.com
ISP Services, Recipes, Best Sellers, History, Humor, Current Issues, and Lots of
Free Stuff.

"picayunish" <e_vdvaart@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d0awb.4665$%W3.22236@amstwist00...

quote:

> Clark Simmons wrote in news:bpqvj0$1r3o5t$1@ID-76126.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> Huh!
> Do you mean browser ?
> --
> Edwin van der Vaart
> http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
> http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Underconstruction
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 11/22/2003

Toby A Inkster

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

Clark Simmons wrote:

quote:

> According to my HTML editor, estimated download time is 10.5 seconds at 56.6.

But 56 Kbaud modems rarely download any faster than 4.8 KB/s.

So assuming optimal conditions, this 80KB page will download in:

(80 KB) / (4.8 KB/s) = 16.7 s (to three significant figures).

In reality (the user has an IM client open, using a little bandwidth, it
is peak time so his ISP is maybe under a bit of strain) the page would
probably take 20 to 40 seconds to download.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Clark Simmons

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

Good grief!

--
Regards, Clark in Round Rock Texas USA

http://xld.com
ISP Services, Recipes, Best Sellers, History, Humor, Current Issues, and Lots of
Free Stuff.

"Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.24.08.27.44.264781@goddamn.co.uk...

quote:

> Clark Simmons wrote:
>
56.6.[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> But 56 Kbaud modems rarely download any faster than 4.8 KB/s.
>
> So assuming optimal conditions, this 80KB page will download in:
>
> (80 KB) / (4.8 KB/s) = 16.7 s (to three significant figures).
>
> In reality (the user has an IM client open, using a little bandwidth, it
> is peak time so his ISP is maybe under a bit of strain) the page would
> probably take 20 to 40 seconds to download.
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
> Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 11/22/2003

kchayka

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

Toby A Inkster wrote:

quote:

> Clark Simmons wrote:
>
>
> But 56 Kbaud modems rarely download any faster than 4.8 KB/s.

On a *really* good day my 56K modem gets about 3KB/s.

My crappy phone lines don't support anything faster than this. :(

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

jake

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

In message <3fc20ed6$0$43847$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>, kchayka
<kcha-un-yka@sihope.com> writes

quote:

>Toby A Inkster wrote:
>
>
>On a *really* good day my 56K modem gets about 3KB/s.
>
>My crappy phone lines don't support anything faster than this. :(
>

You mean you haven't discovered the joys of broadband yet? Or do you
keep the modem just for old times sake ;-)

regards
--
Jake

picayunish

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

Clark Simmons wrote at :

quote:

> No, I said and meant my HTML editor, Homesite.

Thanx for the feet back. Clark and Barefoot.
--
Edwin van der Vaart
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Underconstruction

kchayka

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

jake wrote:

quote:

> In message <3fc20ed6$0$43847$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>, kchayka
> <kcha-un-yka@sihope.com> writes
> You mean you haven't discovered the joys of broadband yet?

Broadband is a wonderful thing, but there are 2 big issues:
1. Availability - not everyone can get it.
2. Cost - not everyone can (or wants to) pay the price.

I bit the bullet because I spend so much time online, but it's foolish
to think all my neighbors have done likewise.

quote:

> Or do you keep the modem just for old times sake ;-)

I keep it around for testing. I don't want to get too complacent. ;)

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

rusty

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

To Allen and Others,

thanks muchly for the excellent critiques! much appreciated. i must at
some point look into this phenomena of "layout without tables" that everyone
keeps harping about. just that old dogs (especially Rusty dogs) don't learn
new tricks easily.

Heard mixed messages re modems. Some are "zap" quick, others, so-so. I
actually have a modem on a backup PC; my test showed home page to complete
in 22 sec and intro page in 17 sec. After that all banners are cached, so
it's pretty quick for other sub-pages. I suspect modem users are used to
this little dance however and since text appears 1st, they can still begin
to read the page after a few seconds.

Allen, thanks for the excellent critique on home-page content. My client
was very sticky about having both the text and graphics "just so", so I was
faithful servant in this respect, but have forwarded your response for his
perusal. I agree with the preponderance of "zingers"; the effect can be
overdone this way. The DHTML nav bar (i think) is cool, but it does occupy
some real estate. It's a trade-off, but it's nice to have (for the majority
of browsers) the choices contantly at your left side.

With regard to the free sample PDF file, my acrobat plug-in encountered an
error, but on downloading and running from my PC, the PDF worked fine.
Something about Corel-generated PDF's I guess. We may have to test the PDF
among a larger user group. If anyone has a the latest version of Acrobat
Reader, I invite you to try the browser plugin; let me know if it works or
not (URL: http://www.medical-breakthroughs.com/free_section.htm )

thanks again,

Rusty

quote:

> ____________
>
> I put them out of order to help illustrate that this page is a series on

one

quote:

> liners -- zingers to convince the reader into buying the book. But seen
> together without the benefit of visual embellishment, it is a mess.
>
> So first, I would go back to square one and select only one 'zinger' line

quote:

> your headline and put SOME the rest of them into a describtive paragraph

or two

quote:

> that actually informs the reader what's inside the book. Why? Because

those

quote:

> one-liners don't say sh*t.
>
> Once you've got your copy together, get an image of the book. It doesn't

matter

quote:

> if this is a spiral-bound, ugly book. Just show them the object you want

them

quote:

> to buy. And right next to it, have a 'Buy Now' button that works, and have

quote:

> 'Buy PDF Now' button that works.
>
> Make EVERYTHING smaller. Your book and the buy now buttons should be near

the

quote:

> top of the page. Drop the dynamic navigation menu because it occupies a

huge

quote:

> amount of page space. Notice how you had to create a negative-space area

all

quote:

> the way down the page to accommodate the navigation bar? Would you have

done

quote:

> that if this web page cost you $100 per square inch? Look at it this way:
> consider philosophically that all the page space that a user with a

800x600

quote:

> screen sees WITHOUT scrolling as costing you $100 per square inch, and all

the

quote:

> page the user sees after they scroll as no charge -- free to you.
>
> Same thing with the picture clouds. You're not selling clouds, you're

selling a

quote:

> book. You don't have to embellish every single item on the page with
> prettiness.
>
> Also, every one-line zinger looks different. Try and solidify the look of

the

quote:

> site with consistency of color, size and font attributes. I like the

choice of

quote:

> blue and gold and white for the site colors. You can make the whole thing

with

quote:

> these colors, dropping red, light blue and light yellow where it appears
> elsewhere in a few places. You should also not use bold for every piece of
> text.
>
> Every page in the site should have a way for the reader to 'buy now' near

the

quote:

> top. Your buy now link doesn't have to be large or garish, but it should

be on

quote:

> every page. My browser title bar should say the name of the book instead

quote:

> "Medical-Breakthroughs: Breakthroughs in Health and Medicine".
>
> Also, I downloaded the free-sample pdf file and got this error message

when I

quote:

> viewed it with GhostView:
>
> **** This file has a corrupted %%EOF marker, or garbage after the

%%EOF.

quote:

> **** The file was produced by Corel PDF Engine Version 10.517:
> **** please notify the author of this software
> **** that the file does not conform to Adobe's published PDF
> **** specification. Processing of the file will continue normally.
>
> Good luck with the book!

Terry

2003-12-03, 7:29 pm

rusty wrote:

quote:

> If anyone has a the latest version of Acrobat
> Reader, I invite you to try the browser plugin; let me know if it works or
> not (URL: http://www.medical-breakthroughs.com/free_section.htm )
>

I get "error reading linearized hint data" with Reader 5.1.0

T.

Toby A Inkster

2003-12-03, 7:30 pm

rusty wrote:

quote:

> We may have to test the PDF among a larger user group.

I get an error message in Ghostview 7.x, although it goes on to render the
file fine. Gpdf displays the file with no error message, although I don't
think it displays error messages for any PDF syntax problems.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Ivor O'Connor

2003-12-03, 7:30 pm

The main text is so large that whatever the point is lost. You have to
scroll down to find what it says. It reminds me of the elephant and
the 5 blind men. You got to navigate around to see it all.

Also try printing the page. 80% of the text gets clipped!

The dynamic menu on the left that seems to bounce into place is cool.

I'm using ie6 on w2k...

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:49:40 GMT, "rusty" <rusty@web555design.com>
wrote:

quote:

>Here's my site:
>
> www.medical-breakthroughs.com
>
>It's fairly heavy on graphics, so I'm a bit concerned about loading times
>for modem users, especially of the home page and of the "introduction"
>page - after that the banners should be cached by browsers.
>
>I'd also invite comments from NN / Mozilla users since I designed primary
>with IE in mind (I know the mobile nav-bar doesn't work in NN/mozilla).
>
>I did freeze widths on certain tables (assuming a majority of visitors will
>have 800-1000 pixel screens); let me know if this works for you.
>
>all comments appreciated..
>
>Rusty...
>

Mark Parnell

2003-12-03, 7:30 pm

Sometime around Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:45:21 GMT, rusty is reported to have
stated:

quote:

> With regard to the free sample PDF file, my acrobat plug-in encountered an
> error, but on downloading and running from my PC, the PDF worked fine.
> Something about Corel-generated PDF's I guess. We may have to test the PDF
> among a larger user group. If anyone has a the latest version of Acrobat
> Reader, I invite you to try the browser plugin; let me know if it works or
> not (URL: http://www.medical-breakthroughs.com/free_section.htm )
>

Works fine, no errors on Adobe Reader 6.0 (Win2k).

BTW: Please don't post upside-down.
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au