I am making a website which has a product catalogue displaying images of designs. Now each product page is as follows:-<br />
<br />
1. Rollovers / layout / buttons / links / text = 35kb<br />
<br />
2. Images of designs inc. thumbs = 95kb<br />
<br />
3. Total kb for page = 130kb<br />
<br />
Now, I'm wondering whether this is too much for a page. Is it better to use more pages with fewer images instead of one page with many images ? At the moment I am using about 11 thumbs and 11 200px by 200px images per page, and displaying them with swap image, so that when you click a thumb it displays the larger image in a box, without opening a new page. Is it better to have each larger image on it's on page ?<br />
<br />
Thanks<br />
<br />
Toot<!--content-->130Kb including images is a very reasonable size.<br />
<br />
Checkout this Bandwidth Calculator (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://virtualgraphicsworld.freeservers.com/bandwidthcalculator.htm">http://virtualgraphicsworld.freeservers ... ulator.htm</a><!-- m -->) which provides<br />
an estimated Download <!--more--> time for various connections.<br />
<br />
<br />
.....Willy<!--content-->according to that page 18 sec. for a 56k connection for a 130Kb site is way to slow. you want your site to load as fast as possible. that way you don't run the visitor off because they got tired of waiting. your page shouldn't be more than 30-50k, in my opinion, as that is a fast load time for all users.<br />
<br />
can't you make your images smaller in size? I mean 11 images for a total of 95k is pretty big. each image shouldn't be more than a 2k if they are thumbs. what format are you using? jpg has the best compression so use that if you are not already.<!--content-->130kb is absolutely way too big, unless you have very patient visitors and wads of cash to spend on advertising cos the search engines , especially google, don't like anything over 100kb!!<br />
<br />
BUT if you have a very well optimized page leading to the page in question you could get away with it, but the smaller the better!<!--content-->130Kb including images is a very reasonable size.<br />
<br />
I believe the operable phrase here is including images.<br />
If the page is properly coded and the image tags define<br />
both the height and width of the images. The browser will<br />
reserve that spot on the page while it continues to parse<br />
the rest of the page and display the text. The browser<br />
will then return and load the images and the visitor will<br />
have the text and the first few images displayed within<br />
seconds. It's not like they will be looking at a blank<br />
page for 18 seconds!<br />
<br />
I stand by my opinion that 130Kb including images is not<br />
unreasonable. Particularly if your site caters towards<br />
image display which in this case appears to be the case.<br />
Besides, anyone on a 56K connection should expect slower<br />
loading times. <br />
<br />
Then again I'm cruising along at approximately 2MB down
<br />
<br />
<br />
.....Willy<!--content-->
<br />
1. Rollovers / layout / buttons / links / text = 35kb<br />
<br />
2. Images of designs inc. thumbs = 95kb<br />
<br />
3. Total kb for page = 130kb<br />
<br />
Now, I'm wondering whether this is too much for a page. Is it better to use more pages with fewer images instead of one page with many images ? At the moment I am using about 11 thumbs and 11 200px by 200px images per page, and displaying them with swap image, so that when you click a thumb it displays the larger image in a box, without opening a new page. Is it better to have each larger image on it's on page ?<br />
<br />
Thanks<br />
<br />
Toot<!--content-->130Kb including images is a very reasonable size.<br />
<br />
Checkout this Bandwidth Calculator (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://virtualgraphicsworld.freeservers.com/bandwidthcalculator.htm">http://virtualgraphicsworld.freeservers ... ulator.htm</a><!-- m -->) which provides<br />
an estimated Download <!--more--> time for various connections.<br />
<br />
<br />
.....Willy<!--content-->according to that page 18 sec. for a 56k connection for a 130Kb site is way to slow. you want your site to load as fast as possible. that way you don't run the visitor off because they got tired of waiting. your page shouldn't be more than 30-50k, in my opinion, as that is a fast load time for all users.<br />
<br />
can't you make your images smaller in size? I mean 11 images for a total of 95k is pretty big. each image shouldn't be more than a 2k if they are thumbs. what format are you using? jpg has the best compression so use that if you are not already.<!--content-->130kb is absolutely way too big, unless you have very patient visitors and wads of cash to spend on advertising cos the search engines , especially google, don't like anything over 100kb!!<br />
<br />
BUT if you have a very well optimized page leading to the page in question you could get away with it, but the smaller the better!<!--content-->130Kb including images is a very reasonable size.<br />
<br />
I believe the operable phrase here is including images.<br />
If the page is properly coded and the image tags define<br />
both the height and width of the images. The browser will<br />
reserve that spot on the page while it continues to parse<br />
the rest of the page and display the text. The browser<br />
will then return and load the images and the visitor will<br />
have the text and the first few images displayed within<br />
seconds. It's not like they will be looking at a blank<br />
page for 18 seconds!<br />
<br />
I stand by my opinion that 130Kb including images is not<br />
unreasonable. Particularly if your site caters towards<br />
image display which in this case appears to be the case.<br />
Besides, anyone on a 56K connection should expect slower<br />
loading times. <br />
<br />
Then again I'm cruising along at approximately 2MB down
<br /><br />
<br />
.....Willy<!--content-->