On Jun 20, 2006, at 11:10 PM, Keith McGuinness wrote: > Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> I don't want to start a flame war here, and before this escalates >> further, >> perhaps you can define what constitutes a long time, Ann. How >> long does it >> take for you to DL an image of about 150K? What do you mean when >> you say >> it slows your system down? > > I appreciate the reasons you ask these questions and they are > reasonable. > > It is, however, I think important to remember that it is not > really the size of a single file that is important: it is the > size of ALL the files in the gallery. > > Say 10 files of 200K each is going to take a while over dial-up, > at least that's my memory of the speed.
Galleries should not include the full resolution files. Using full resolution files scaled to fit in small rectangles for a gallery page is poor web page design. Galleries should be built of many small thumbnail files, specially created as thumbnails for the gallery, that load reasonably quickly. For instance, the gallery index page for my PAW 2006 project is at http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/index.html is currently comprised of one 30K HTML file and 24 JPEG thumbnail files, the largest of which is 20K. Clicking on them moves you to an individual page for the photograph you selected. Yes, it does take even that a while to load with a slow connection ... it is 350K currently and requires quite a number of interactions for a browser to request all the files to fill the HTML table ... but it's far far better than crudely downloading full resolution files and scaling them to fit a gallery display. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
