Jul 20, 2002, 9:44 AM
Veteran (2577 posts)
Jul 20, 2002, 9:44 AM
Post #27 of 33
Views: 6345
So, the point of this thread is "Calling 56k dialup person for test", and I think the topic is diverting.
My particular site is aimed at only those people using Links SQL, as it is for Links SQL plug-ins. I think anyone running an Links SQL site with anything less than 56k to acces their server is going to have bigger troubles than loading my plugin page. So I will not be catering to under 56k for the purposes of my web site design.
http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins
My particular site is aimed at only those people using Links SQL, as it is for Links SQL plug-ins. I think anyone running an Links SQL site with anything less than 56k to acces their server is going to have bigger troubles than loading my plugin page. So I will not be catering to under 56k for the purposes of my web site design.
http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins
Jul 20, 2002, 9:46 AM
Veteran (17240 posts)
Jul 20, 2002, 9:46 AM
Post #29 of 33
Views: 6222
That's fine as that is your target audience. Although I wanted to point out that there is a difference between having 56K modems and modem pool dialup speeds and telecom routing equipment that affects the "actual" speed of internet access.
But as you probably already have seen, some Links SQL users that connect close to 56K speeds have reported that it takes awhile to download your "splash" image.
========================================
Buh Bye!
Cheers,
Me
But as you probably already have seen, some Links SQL users that connect close to 56K speeds have reported that it takes awhile to download your "splash" image.
========================================
Buh Bye!
Cheers,
Me
Jul 20, 2002, 9:54 AM
Veteran (2577 posts)
Jul 20, 2002, 9:54 AM
Post #30 of 33
Views: 6256
Ok,
Thanks for everyone's comments. I have enough information now.
I think for this particular case I will give a url which by-passes my opening page for the slower connections. I intend on placing more information on my opening page for those who have the higher speed however.
15 seconds is too long to wait for a 56k user.
http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins
Thanks for everyone's comments. I have enough information now.
I think for this particular case I will give a url which by-passes my opening page for the slower connections. I intend on placing more information on my opening page for those who have the higher speed however.
15 seconds is too long to wait for a 56k user.
http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins
Jul 20, 2002, 12:42 PM
Enthusiast (899 posts)
Jul 20, 2002, 12:42 PM
Post #31 of 33
Views: 6106
The point is nobody designs for 28K.
The minimum design level is 56K now.
The average is more in the 70+ range (because of DSL, SAT, CABLE, T1, etc...)
Wireless is even faster than 28!
The minimum design level is 56K now.
The average is more in the 70+ range (because of DSL, SAT, CABLE, T1, etc...)
Wireless is even faster than 28!
Jul 20, 2002, 12:49 PM
Veteran (19537 posts)
Jul 20, 2002, 12:49 PM
Post #32 of 33
Views: 6167
This is a nice little tool Ian and normally shrinks images I think are already shrunk to the max...
http://www.gifcruncher.com
Actual Tool:
http://www.spinwave.com/crunchers.html
http://www.gifcruncher.com
Actual Tool:
http://www.spinwave.com/crunchers.html
Jul 20, 2002, 1:08 PM
Veteran (2577 posts)
Jul 20, 2002, 1:08 PM
Post #33 of 33
Views: 6063
Thanks Paul.
Unforntunatley that particular graphic looks like crap at 256 colors... most I have been able to squeeze into gif no prob, this one seemed a little stubborn.
That gifcrucher is amazing!
Teambldr: I agree.
http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins
Unforntunatley that particular graphic looks like crap at 256 colors... most I have been able to squeeze into gif no prob, this one seemed a little stubborn.
That gifcrucher is amazing!
Teambldr: I agree.
http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins