If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Internet question, part II
Okay, here's the newly refurb'd site:
www.AlexisParkInn.com I haven't had time to do all the text editor clean-up, but: a) The counter is gone. b) The main picture is smaller on the flash page. c) I've eliminated a bunch of superfluous pictures on the second page (which used to be the home page...) It appears to be loading MUCH faster now, but the second page is still going to choke most dial-up connections, I fear... -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote: It appears to be loading MUCH faster now, but the second page is still going to choke most dial-up connections, I fear... I think you've got it pretty well. It took about 2 seconds on my DSL to load completely, and things were appearing immediately (no wondering if something was happening). When I hit the second page, the important stuff (the text) loaded immediately, with the photos and menu items showing up one at a time. Back when I used dialup for access, I would be reading the text while waiting on other stuff to load, and probably would be picking one of the menu items as soon as it appeared. With that in mind, you might give some thought to the order in which the menu items appear. Put the ones that most potential customers would want to select high in the list. To me, the first ones would be rates, floor plans, directions to the inn, floor plans, and the theme suites. I would redo the "cool stuff" page somehow. There are things in there (like the mention of high speed internet access and a courtesy car) that really should be mentioned elsewhere, mixed up with stuff that only interests pilots and other things that really don't belong on a business web site. George Patterson The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
a) The counter is gone.
Yay! b) The main picture is smaller on the flash page. Not smaller enough. It still demands half of a twenty one inch monitor set for 1600 bits of width. I would smallify (I like the word too!) it more, and center it, which means getting rid of the navigation bar and other stuff to the left, and putting it on top or on the bottom, so that the full width of the browser can be used for the smaller picture. c) I've eliminated a bunch of superfluous pictures on the second page (which used to be the home page...) I don't notice the difference. What will make a difference here is supercompressing the little pictures. Jose -- Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I don't notice the difference. What will make a difference here is
supercompressing the little pictures. I've tried that, and lost too much resolution. What's the trick to compressing pix without losing clarity? -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck opined
I don't notice the difference. What will make a difference here is supercompressing the little pictures. I've tried that, and lost too much resolution. What's the trick to compressing pix without losing clarity? I took your floor plan Suite%20102.jpg, 135453 bytes in size, and converted it to a single bit (two color) gif of 13787 bytes. If I had used the original drawing the file would be smaller still, as the jpg artifacts would be missing. -ash Cthulhu in 2005! Why wait for nature? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I've tried that, and lost too much resolution.
What's the trick to compressing pix without losing clarity? How much is "too much"? Send me a sample of what you consider "too much loss". (for Email, use teacher, follow it with jh, the snail, and the domain of that place in Vienna VA.) Yes, you lose some, but in the context of that particular page, it doesn't really matter. You can have a prettier picture on the page the thumbnail links to, and I think people would rather have the page load fast than load pretty. I compressed it to 2K and it looked fine (though not quite as good as the one that takes up five times as many bytes). The "trick" might be different software. Some does a better job. I use iphoto+ 4.0, which came with my (cheap) scanner and it works fine. Jose -- Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote: Okay, here's the newly refurb'd site: www.AlexisParkInn.com I haven't had time to do all the text editor clean-up, but: a) The counter is gone. b) The main picture is smaller on the flash page. c) I've eliminated a bunch of superfluous pictures on the second page (which used to be the home page...) It appears to be loading MUCH faster now, but the second page is still going to choke most dial-up connections, I fear... It looks good from here and loaded okay . I'm on dailup and the loading speed was as well as can be expected... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Doesn't matter what quality the image was scanned at, monitors do not
display well. For web stuff, I don't scan at anything higher than 150 dpi since most monitors only display 72 dpi. Now, if you're going to need the high quality for other things, go ahead and use the disk space.... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
Okay, here's the newly refurb'd site: www.AlexisParkInn.com SNIP It appears to be loading MUCH faster now, but the second page is still going to choke most dial-up connections, I fear... I think it's loading pretty good. I tried it at our place at the beach (dialup, slow windows98 laptop, Netscape) and it loading as quickly as can be expected for dialup. The "welcome" page is obviously slower than the first page, but there are more images to load. I don't think it's a big deal. One thing that might be considered unneccesary is the little "bracket" shaped thing that shows up when you pass your mouse over the left hand buttons... it's probably not worth removing/changing. --- Jay -- __!__ Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___ http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! ! http://www.oceancityairport.com http://www.oc-adolfos.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
I don't notice the difference. What will make a difference here is supercompressing the little pictures. I've tried that, and lost too much resolution. What's the trick to compressing pix without losing clarity? It's always a trade off. On my Mac, I have a utility that allows you to change the exact percentage of compression/loss in a jpeg. It shows you a before and after sample of the image, so you can see how bad the image gets while adjusting the percentage. -- __!__ Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___ http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! ! http://www.oceancityairport.com http://www.oc-adolfos.com |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Part 135 Question - Weather Reporting requirement | G Farris | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | October 21st 04 11:05 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Stiffness of finished Carbon Fiber part | RKT | Home Built | 3 | April 8th 04 02:00 PM |
FWD: Look at this internet patch for Microsoft Internet Explorer | Charles S | Home Built | 15 | October 2nd 03 08:08 PM |
Millionaire at 31... on the Internet. Listen to how he's doing it. | ower | Home Built | 0 | August 2nd 03 10:23 AM |