How many seconds to load these pages?

Hi there

We would appreciate your testing the following pages and responding with
*only* the following information for each of the pages. Please copy and
paste *just the following* into your reply for each page.


* Time in seconds until you saw the street image appear: xx seconds
* Your country:
* Broadband speed: xx Mb/s
* Browser: FF / IE / Safari (delete as applicable)


NB:
! The site is designed for Broadband so please do not test using dial-up
! JavaScript must be enabled
! Designed for IE, FF and Safari only so please do not test elsewhere (Opera
limitations on div widths prevent it working currently)
! Please familiarise yourself with the home page first to understand the
concept: http://tinyurl.com/2s89nv


The 3 pages to test follow. Please paste the above results under each of
these 3:

1) George St: http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr
2) Portobello Rd: http://tinyurl.com/324fqj
3) Oxford St: http://tinyurl.com/fe2kw


(We appreciate you may have other feedback however this poster *cannot*
enter into any other dialogue or pass on any other comments. Market
research is a separate thing and all feedback there has already been
considered. What we are looking for is just some specific info, thank you.)

Many thanks to all posters able to reply as requested above.

"Mika" <anon (AT) anon (DOT) com> writes:

Hi there

We heard you the first time.

sherm--

--
WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

"Mika" <anon (AT) anon (DOT) com> wrote

1) George St: http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

Fourty seven and a quarter seconds to download on a 10Mbs cable connection.
Way way too long, but you have been told this many times.

If this turned up in my search engine I would have pressed the back button
after about 10 seconds. If really interested I might wait 20 seconds. After
that however I would get the feeling that you are shunting stuff down to me
just because you can, probably some flash movie or an hour of *your*
favourite noise. How much longer should I wait? Minutes? Hours? Not bloody
likely.

2.16 megabytes for a page is *way* too much. However this is not the real
problem, it's the two hundred and thirty one seperate requests back to the
server that is killing this. From here (and you know where I am) there is a
minimum ping time of some 400 milliseconds to the UK. Oh, I forgot, If I
don't live in the UK then I am not allowed to use this site :-)

Since this is .site-design: This is *not* a well designed site.

2) Portobello Rd: http://tinyurl.com/324fqj
3) Oxford St: http://tinyurl.com/fe2kw

I'm not going to waste *my* bandwidth downloading what probably will be
exactly the same as the first page.

(We appreciate you may have other feedback however this poster *cannot*
enter into any other dialogue or pass on any other comments. Market
research is a separate thing and all feedback there has already been
considered.

And largely ignored.

What we are looking for is just some specific info, thank you.)

Many thanks to all posters able to reply as requested above.

I'll reply as I like thankyou. This is not your personal help desk.

--
Richard.

"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote

2.16 megabytes for a page is *way* too much.

The page is under 300K to the first image of the streetscape. Your size
measuring tool is misleading as it is looking at all elements, however these
never download unless you scroll the street, then they happen on demand. In
reality, the initial load size is small.

However this is not the real problem, it's the two hundred and thirty one
seperate requests back to the server that is killing this.

Thanks for the info. We do load several divs onto the streetscape, but I
wonder if you can explain where you are seeing 231 requests coming from, or
why they are occurring?

This might really help us cut down the time you have complained of. Why all
the requests? :-S

(We appreciate you may have other feedback however this poster *cannot*
enter into any other dialogue or pass on any other comments. Market
research is a separate thing and all feedback there has already been
considered.

And largely ignored.

(Actually we have changed a great deal based on other *constructive*
feedback at alt.html and c.l.j, so you are mistaken. We have become W3C CSS
compliant, removed the startup sound, sped up the load time by double,
adjusted tags, refined elements, changed confusing text items, removed
dozens of divs, removed over 50 adverts, and more. In fact we worked on it
almost solidly since receiving feedback here. Working solidly on something
is not 'ignoring'. It is the opposite and you are wrong there. We'll work
with you if you work with us, so as we said - in the other group -
"constructive" feedback welcomed there. Sadly that is the request that has
been 'largely ignored', as the undeserved flames keep coming at us.)

"Mika" <anon (AT) anon (DOT) com> wrote

"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Fe33j.17779$CN4.8539 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...

2.16 megabytes for a page is *way* too much.

The page is under 300K to the first image of the streetscape. Your size
measuring tool is misleading as it is looking at all elements, however
these never download unless you scroll the street, then they happen on
demand. In reality, the initial load size is small.

You are wrong. I looked at your page with firefox and firebug open at the
Net panel, the one that tells me what is being downloaded and how long it is
taking. I did *not* touch either keyboard nor mouse during the entire time
the page loaded. I did *not* scroll the street. Firebug reported exactly
what firefox downloaded.

The numbers I quoted are precise.

However this is not the real problem, it's the two hundred and thirty one
seperate requests back to the server that is killing this.

Thanks for the info. We do load several divs onto the streetscape, but I
wonder if you can explain where you are seeing 231 requests coming from,
or why they are occurring?

This might really help us cut down the time you have complained of. Why
all the requests? :-S

You tell me. It's your page. Turn on firebug and watch the requests scroll
past :-)

If you don't have firebug installed then you should do it right now.

(We appreciate you may have other feedback however this poster *cannot*
enter into any other dialogue or pass on any other comments. Market
research is a separate thing and all feedback there has already been
considered.

And largely ignored.

(Actually we have changed a great deal based on other *constructive*
feedback at alt.html and c.l.j, so you are mistaken. We have become W3C
CSS compliant, removed the startup sound, sped up the load time by double,

It needs to be sped up by an order of magnitude.

adjusted tags, refined elements, changed confusing text items, removed
dozens of divs, removed over 50 adverts, and more. In fact we worked on
it almost solidly since receiving feedback here. Working solidly on
something is not 'ignoring'. It is the opposite and you are wrong there.
We'll work

Ok, I admit you have changed a few things. I cannot unfortunately visit your
page that often as I have used up my bandwidth for the month and am
currently being charged 15c per megabyte. That means, to look once at your
page, it costs me thirty one cents.

with you if you work with us, so as we said - in the other group -
"constructive" feedback welcomed there. Sadly that is the request that
has been 'largely ignored', as the undeserved flames keep coming at us.)

I and everybody else tell you the site is way way way way way to big. You
change so it is just way way way way to big. You wonder why I and others get
a bit flamey?

--
Richard.

"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote

2.16 megabytes for a page is *way* too much.

The page is under 300K to the first image of the streetscape. Your size
measuring tool is misleading as it is looking at all elements, however
these never download unless you scroll the street, then they happen on
demand. In reality, the initial load size is small.

The numbers I quoted are precise.

Ah, a misunderstanding. *Our page* is under 300K. However external
elements are triggered from other places like Google Maps and Google
Adwords, and affiliate ads. These do add up don't they :-S Firebug reports
1.41MB and a load time of 4.61 seconds (in the UK). That's not at all bad
for a UK-oriented site featuring UK shops who can only deliver to the UK.
Still not sure why you get 2.16 MB but it's a small difference.

Looking further into it, of our 4.61 seconds, Google Map images take longer
to load than any other element. 1.22s compared to our elements which are
0-300ms.

You tell me. It's your page. Turn on firebug and watch the requests scroll
past :-)

Thanks, a useful suggestion.

Ok, I admit you have changed a few things. I cannot unfortunately visit
your page that often as I have used up my bandwidth for the month and am
currently being charged 15c per megabyte.

You need a better broadband plan and are being ripped off. (Don't mind me
giving you some advice for a bit do you?)

I and everybody else tell you the site is way way way way way to big. You
change so it is just way way way way to big. You wonder why I and others
get a bit flamey?

Yes, definitely still wonder. You don't understand human nature. If you
had a baby, and raised it for a year, then some very angry people told you
it was ugly and you should change it, would you throw it out and get a new
one? This is basic psychology. If you can't make suggestions that are done
in a way that makes the target of your flame responsive to them, and you
know you are doing so, then the true subconscious intention of your message
is to belittle and make yourself and your website skills seem bigger and
better.

On the other hand if you truly want to help, you would choose to make
suggestions in a way you know they would be received well. The choice is
always with the sender of the message.

(When I say 'you' I don't mean personally, but plurally to some people on
this group. Others have managed quite easily to be nice, so there is no
excuse.)

You need to understand that going back to the drawing board is not an option
at this stage. It may just be that current Internet speeds are not ready
for the *concept*, but whether we use Flash or AJAX or JS, at some point
those graphics have to download to your computer at that size.

"Mika" <anon (AT) anon (DOT) com> wrote

"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Zma3j.17941$CN4.13129 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...

Ah, a misunderstanding. *Our page* is under 300K. However external
elements are triggered from other places like Google Maps and Google
Adwords, and affiliate ads. These do add up don't they :-S Firebug
reports 1.41MB and a load time of 4.61 seconds (in the UK). That's not at
all bad for a UK-oriented site featuring UK shops who can only deliver to
the UK. Still not sure why you get 2.16 MB but it's a small difference.

Your "page" is what gets downloaded to my client, including all the external
things you mention. Your "page" is still 2.16 megabytes. The fact that some
of it comes from outside sources is irrelevant.

Ok, I admit you have changed a few things. I cannot unfortunately visit
your page that often as I have used up my bandwidth for the month and am
currently being charged 15c per megabyte.

You need a better broadband plan and are being ripped off. (Don't mind me
giving you some advice for a bit do you?)

You have no idea about what internet charges my be levied in other
countries, do you. Australia is one of the most expensive countries in the
world to purchace bandwith. My plan is one of the better ones.

--
Richard.

rf wrote:

You have no idea about what internet charges my be levied in other
countries, do you. Australia is one of the most expensive countries in
the world to purchace bandwith. My plan is one of the better ones.

I read just the other day, somewhere, about some 3rd world wasteland
country where the cost for an internet connection is the equivalent of
$200-$300 US per month (do the conversion as needed). And that being
the kind of country it is, you're probably doing well if you make the
equivalent of $15 US per month (do the conversion as needed).


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org