|
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove
obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such. http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today. I said sure. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg Two hours later I was done. What that stuff in the above picture, is a new Scotsman ice bag cabinet, as well as a used "Ole Hickory" natural gas meat smoker. I kept asking the Russian Santa, called Ded Moroz, for something like that smoker, for years. Ded Moroz brings presents for the New Year, so, I think, he finally heard me and got me this on Dec 30. i |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:49:39 -0600, Ignoramus24626
wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such. http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today. I said sure. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg DAMN, Ig. I've been meaning to ask you this for years now: _When_ are you going to learn how to process graphics for the web? Your images are all huge (5k x 3k pixels) and multi-megabyte. I pare a graphic like that down to 1024 largest dim and dice it to maybe 100kb. Each is done in under ten seconds, and each loads in seconds. Yours take nearly a minute on my 4mbs DSL to load. I realize that some pictures will need to be large to show details for a sale, but several smaller snippets from one would work better for you, I'm sure. Consider Photoshop or another image processing prog. Two hours later I was done. That's a great Christmas bonus you got for yourself. What that stuff in the above picture, is a new Scotsman ice bag cabinet, as well as a used "Ole Hickory" natural gas meat smoker. I kept asking the Russian Santa, called Ded Moroz, for something like that smoker, for years. Ded Moroz brings presents for the New Year, so, I think, he finally heard me and got me this on Dec 30. Way cool. Did you spend money on wages to help pick it up, or was it solely your job? I'd consider that money well spent, either way. What's the new Scotsman going to net you on eBay (or wherever)? JES Restaurant Supply has 'em for $8,653.84 Bwahahahaha! Merry Christmas! -- Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. -- Scott Adams, 'The Dilbert Principle' |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 2015-12-31, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:49:39 -0600, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such. http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today. I said sure. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg DAMN, Ig. I've been meaning to ask you this for years now: _When_ are you going to learn how to process graphics for the web? Your images are all huge (5k x 3k pixels) and multi-megabyte. I pare a graphic like that down to 1024 largest dim and dice it to maybe 100kb. Each is done in under ten seconds, and each loads in seconds. Yours take nearly a minute on my 4mbs DSL to load. I realize that some pictures will need to be large to show details for a sale, but several smaller snippets from one would work better for you, I'm sure. Consider Photoshop or another image processing prog. I did consider this very deeply. I very strongly believe in high resolution and quality of video and images. 320 pixel videos make me cringe. I feel that on most websites with pictures, the pictures are way too small to be useful. They are economizing on bytes that cost next to nothing, at the expense of clarity and ability to zoom in. Two hours later I was done. That's a great Christmas bonus you got for yourself. What that stuff in the above picture, is a new Scotsman ice bag cabinet, as well as a used "Ole Hickory" natural gas meat smoker. I kept asking the Russian Santa, called Ded Moroz, for something like that smoker, for years. Ded Moroz brings presents for the New Year, so, I think, he finally heard me and got me this on Dec 30. Way cool. Did you spend money on wages to help pick it up, or was it solely your job? I'd consider that money well spent, either way. What's the new Scotsman going to net you on eBay (or wherever)? JES Restaurant Supply has 'em for $8,653.84 Bwahahahaha! Merry Christmas! I think that Scotsman sells for $3,200 brand new. I will probably get 1.5k for it. i |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
Score! We love our smoker. I use it all year around. Smoke
a roast for 6 hours and it falls apart. I smoke corn on the cob and whatever. Just figure the time at the temp and put it in near the end. Nice bucket on the side for grease trap. Now for a nice Pecan tree to fall down in the ice to fetch the smoking wood! Or a plum. Or go to a big box - and they have bags of cherry..... Martin On 12/30/2015 5:49 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such. http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today. I said sure. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg Two hours later I was done. What that stuff in the above picture, is a new Scotsman ice bag cabinet, as well as a used "Ole Hickory" natural gas meat smoker. I kept asking the Russian Santa, called Ded Moroz, for something like that smoker, for years. Ded Moroz brings presents for the New Year, so, I think, he finally heard me and got me this on Dec 30. i |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 2015-12-31, Martin Eastburn wrote:
Score! We love our smoker. I use it all year around. Smoke a roast for 6 hours and it falls apart. I smoke corn on the cob and whatever. Just figure the time at the temp and put it in near the end. Nice. What wood do you use? Nice bucket on the side for grease trap. Yes, that makes washing the smoker very easy. I already cleaned it up some today. Now for a nice Pecan tree to fall down in the ice to fetch the smoking wood! Or a plum. Or go to a big box - and they have bags of cherry..... Anything but apple... i Martin On 12/30/2015 5:49 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such. http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today. I said sure. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg Two hours later I was done. What that stuff in the above picture, is a new Scotsman ice bag cabinet, as well as a used "Ole Hickory" natural gas meat smoker. I kept asking the Russian Santa, called Ded Moroz, for something like that smoker, for years. Ded Moroz brings presents for the New Year, so, I think, he finally heard me and got me this on Dec 30. i |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:05:37 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:49:39 -0600, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such. http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today. I said sure. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg DAMN, Ig. I've been meaning to ask you this for years now: _When_ are you going to learn how to process graphics for the web? Your images are all huge (5k x 3k pixels) and multi-megabyte. I pare a graphic like that down to 1024 largest dim and dice it to maybe 100kb. Each is done in under ten seconds, and each loads in seconds. Yours take nearly a minute on my 4mbs DSL to load. I realize that some pictures will need to be large to show details for a sale, but several smaller snippets from one would work better for you, I'm sure. Consider Photoshop or another image processing prog. Two hours later I was done. That's a great Christmas bonus you got for yourself. What that stuff in the above picture, is a new Scotsman ice bag cabinet, as well as a used "Ole Hickory" natural gas meat smoker. I kept asking the Russian Santa, called Ded Moroz, for something like that smoker, for years. Ded Moroz brings presents for the New Year, so, I think, he finally heard me and got me this on Dec 30. Way cool. Did you spend money on wages to help pick it up, or was it solely your job? I'd consider that money well spent, either way. What's the new Scotsman going to net you on eBay (or wherever)? JES Restaurant Supply has 'em for $8,653.84 Bwahahahaha! Merry Christmas! Forget photoshop. There is a free program that would work perfectly for Igor (and the rest of you) called IrfanView. Tiny little chunk of code that works wonders as a viewer.compressor, and even limited editing (like color balance, redeye rmoval, etc) |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 12/30/2015 6:49 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote:
On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" .... http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl ... Nice page - there is "No BS" flavor to it. |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:00:47 -0500, Bob Engelhardt
wrote: On 12/30/2015 6:49 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" ... http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl ... Nice page - there is "No BS" flavor to it. I'll second that. Great job, Ig. -- Ed Huntress |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 2015-12-31, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 12/30/2015 6:49 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" ... http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl ... Nice page - there is "No BS" flavor to it. Thank you! I did try to impart that flavor. One of my sources of inspiration on how to write websites for working people, is Vannatta Brothers forestry equipment website. http://vannattabros.com/ i |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 2015-12-31, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:00:47 -0500, Bob Engelhardt wrote: On 12/30/2015 6:49 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" ... http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl ... Nice page - there is "No BS" flavor to it. I'll second that. Great job, Ig. And thank you, too. i |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
"Ignoramus24626" wrote in
message ... On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such. http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today. I said sure. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg Two hours later I was done. What that stuff in the above picture, is a new Scotsman ice bag cabinet, as well as a used "Ole Hickory" natural gas meat smoker. I kept asking the Russian Santa, called Ded Moroz, for something like that smoker, for years. Ded Moroz brings presents for the New Year, so, I think, he finally heard me and got me this on Dec 30. i Can you fool Baba Yaga into stealing the stuff you don't want? |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
Ignoramus24626 wrote:
On 2015-12-31, Martin Eastburn wrote: Score! We love our smoker. I use it all year around. Smoke a roast for 6 hours and it falls apart. I smoke corn on the cob and whatever. Just figure the time at the temp and put it in near the end. Nice. What wood do you use? I use hickory, cherry, pear, sugar maple, apple, and grape. Depending on the meat. Nice bucket on the side for grease trap. Yes, that makes washing the smoker very easy. I already cleaned it up some today. Now for a nice Pecan tree to fall down in the ice to fetch the smoking wood! Or a plum. Or go to a big box - and they have bags of cherry..... Anything but apple... i -- Steve W. |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:17:50 -0600, Ignoramus24626
wrote: On 2015-12-31, Larry Jaques wrote: On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:49:39 -0600, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such. http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today. I said sure. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg DAMN, Ig. I've been meaning to ask you this for years now: _When_ are you going to learn how to process graphics for the web? Your images are all huge (5k x 3k pixels) and multi-megabyte. I pare a graphic like that down to 1024 largest dim and dice it to maybe 100kb. Each is done in under ten seconds, and each loads in seconds. Yours take nearly a minute on my 4mbs DSL to load. I realize that some pictures will need to be large to show details for a sale, but several smaller snippets from one would work better for you, I'm sure. Consider Photoshop or another image processing prog. I did consider this very deeply. I'm sorry we disagree so strongly on this. In my other life as a web designer, speed of a site was of utmost importance, and still is to me and many others. You may be on 50mbs cable now, but not everyone is. I very strongly believe in high resolution and quality of video and images. 320 pixel videos make me cringe. I agree. And have you seen the "videographers" out there with their phones? Most are less stable than Parkinsons afflictees. I get sick trying to watch the majority of YouTubers. I feel that on most websites with pictures, the pictures are way too small to be useful. So process larger pics for your site. Simple. 500kb is much better than 4mb per pic, and you lose no relevant detail. They are economizing on bytes that cost next to nothing, at the expense of clarity and ability to zoom in. I no longer view all your pics (limiting to one or two) for a project because those cheap bytes take so damned long to download on my mediocre DSL connection. Crom help those on dialup, like Jim. Way cool. Did you spend money on wages to help pick it up, or was it solely your job? I'd consider that money well spent, either way. What's the new Scotsman going to net you on eBay (or wherever)? JES Restaurant Supply has 'em for $8,653.84 Bwahahahaha! Merry Christmas! I think that Scotsman sells for $3,200 brand new. I will probably get 1.5k for it. http://tinyurl.com/hhkjd4b Isn't this your machine? Or is this a larger cousin? -- Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. -- Scott Adams, 'The Dilbert Principle' |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:33:27 -0600, Ignoramus24626
wrote: On 2015-12-31, Bob Engelhardt wrote: On 12/30/2015 6:49 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" ... http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl ... Nice page - there is "No BS" flavor to it. Thank you! I did try to impart that flavor. One of my sources of inspiration on how to write websites for working people, is Vannatta Brothers forestry equipment website. http://vannattabros.com/ Those pictures are way too small to impart detail, Ig. bseg -- Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. -- Scott Adams, 'The Dilbert Principle' |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 06:55:48 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ignoramus24626" wrote in message ... On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such. http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today. I said sure. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg Two hours later I was done. What that stuff in the above picture, is a new Scotsman ice bag cabinet, as well as a used "Ole Hickory" natural gas meat smoker. I kept asking the Russian Santa, called Ded Moroz, for something like that smoker, for years. Ded Moroz brings presents for the New Year, so, I think, he finally heard me and got me this on Dec 30. i Can you fool Baba Yaga into stealing the stuff you don't want? Prolly not. There's scrap metal money to be made there. -- Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. -- Scott Adams, 'The Dilbert Principle' |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:17:50 -0600, Ignoramus24626 wrote: ... I no longer view all your pics (limiting to one or two) for a project because those cheap bytes take so damned long to download on my mediocre DSL connection. Crom help those on dialup, like Jim. I either skip the pix or switch to my 100kb/s cellular modem. Usually they weren't worth the bother unless I have a good answer to a problem they clarify. -jsw |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 12/30/2015 7:17 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote:
.... I did consider this very deeply. I very strongly believe in high resolution and quality of video and images. 320 pixel videos make me cringe. I feel that on most websites with pictures, the pictures are way too small to be useful. They are economizing on bytes that cost next to nothing, at the expense of clarity and ability to zoom in. .... But certainly it's a cost to those of us who otherwise might look at 'em, if that's your intent. If they're there only for your entertainment, so be it, but I quit at about 1/8-th of the way thru as even w/ my wireless connection it was going to be several minutes to see even one full image. There can't be that much useful info in a snapshot of a smoker, sorry. -- |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:03:19 -0600, dpb wrote:
On 12/30/2015 7:17 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote: ... I did consider this very deeply. I very strongly believe in high resolution and quality of video and images. 320 pixel videos make me cringe. I feel that on most websites with pictures, the pictures are way too small to be useful. They are economizing on bytes that cost next to nothing, at the expense of clarity and ability to zoom in. ... But certainly it's a cost to those of us who otherwise might look at 'em, if that's your intent. If they're there only for your entertainment, so be it, but I quit at about 1/8-th of the way thru as even w/ my wireless connection it was going to be several minutes to see even one full image. There can't be that much useful info in a snapshot of a smoker, sorry. FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. The image size issue is something we wrestle with all the time in online magazines. At Fab Shop, we use an underlying PDF file, so our photos are JPEG-compressed like hell. There are two schools of thought: One is to juggle things to try to accomodate people with slow connections. The other is, if they have a slow connection, it's not worth it to lower quality for everyone else just to accomodate the others. If your intended readers are serious businesspeople, they almost certainly have the fastest connection that they can get. Surveys in the publishing business have indicated this. Iggy's photos look like they're straight out of the camera (16 MP) and highest-quality JPEG, at around 5 MB, which is typical for the very slight JPEG compression that most cameras apply internally. Ig, you can squash the file size down a lot by using a medium-quality JPEG compression in Photoshop, GIMP, or whatever you use,, while leaving the image size alone. As it is, I can count the veins in the maple leaves on the ground. That's a little more than you need. g You really have to stomp on photos like that with lower-quality JPEG settings before you notice it. FWIW, for full-width magazine spreads, I typically run the JPEGS at around 3,000 - 4,000 pixel width, with compression that results in around 1.5 MB file size. They don't look much different than the results that then come out of the PDF squeeze machine, which are much smaller, and they have plenty of sharpness and detail. -- Ed Huntress |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:03:19 -0600, dpb wrote:
On 12/30/2015 7:17 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote: ... I did consider this very deeply. I very strongly believe in high resolution and quality of video and images. 320 pixel videos make me cringe. I feel that on most websites with pictures, the pictures are way too small to be useful. They are economizing on bytes that cost next to nothing, at the expense of clarity and ability to zoom in. ... But certainly it's a cost to those of us who otherwise might look at 'em, if that's your intent. If they're there only for your entertainment, so be it, but I quit at about 1/8-th of the way thru as even w/ my wireless connection it was going to be several minutes to see even one full image. There can't be that much useful info in a snapshot of a smoker, sorry. Whoop! That download time of less than two seconds was for Ig's rigging photos. For the smoker, it took 7 seconds. -- Ed Huntress |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 12/31/2015 10:45 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
.... FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. .... I guess that's fine for those who have access to such bandwidth; not all do (no matter what the cost might be). -- |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:41:12 -0600, dpb wrote:
On 12/31/2015 10:45 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: ... FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. ... I guess that's fine for those who have access to such bandwidth; not all do (no matter what the cost might be). Again, if it's not business, it's better to accomodate slow connections. -- Ed Huntress |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 12/31/2015 11:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
.... Again, if it's not business, it's better to accomodate slow connections. Trust me, after being limited to dialup until roughly 18 mo ago or so, this is comparatively blazing... -- |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 31/12/15 17:44, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:41:12 -0600, dpb wrote: On 12/31/2015 10:45 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: ... FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. ... I guess that's fine for those who have access to such bandwidth; not all do (no matter what the cost might be). Again, if it's not business, it's better to accomodate slow connections. I look at Iggy's pictures occasionally and find them invariably slow to load, I had assumed it was his server but not looked at the size of the images. My ADSL is around 5Mbps so don't find many things a problem but it is getting worse as web designers add more "features", scripting is getting a pain with many sites and the NoScript add on is useful for that . When I did my website most people had dial-up so the first images people see are a sensible size for reasonably quick loading on a dial-up connection then if the viewer wants to see more they can click the image and get a larger version in a new window. I'm sure Iggy could do that easily and automate it. |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:49:12 +0000, David Billington
wrote: On 31/12/15 17:44, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:41:12 -0600, dpb wrote: On 12/31/2015 10:45 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: ... FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. ... I guess that's fine for those who have access to such bandwidth; not all do (no matter what the cost might be). Again, if it's not business, it's better to accomodate slow connections. I look at Iggy's pictures occasionally and find them invariably slow to load, I had assumed it was his server but not looked at the size of the images. My ADSL is around 5Mbps so don't find many things a problem but it is getting worse as web designers add more "features", scripting is getting a pain with many sites and the NoScript add on is useful for that . When I did my website most people had dial-up so the first images people see are a sensible size for reasonably quick loading on a dial-up connection then if the viewer wants to see more they can click the image and get a larger version in a new window. I'm sure Iggy could do that easily and automate it. This is one of the ongoing debates among commercial companies on the Web, and there is a lot to discuss. Suffice to say that most people prefer the "richer" websites, and that 44 US states now have *average* broadband speeds above 10 Mbps download. A couple of days ago, NYC opened its first two free wifi kiosks, with gigabit wifi, in my son's neighborhood. They're installing 7,500 more. The state of NY is investing $500 million, with another $500 million provided by the private sector, to raise minimum download speeds to 100 Mbps throughout the state by 2019. Where I live, in NJ, the average is above 15 Mbps. The same is true for the other mid-Atlantic seaboard states, plus Washington and Utah. My service is 60 Mbps; for a few bucks more per month, I could have 100. That's where most of the customers are. A lot of RCM members live outside of metro areas, but they aren't typical of the majority of US users. So, again, if you're a business and you're deciding how much of a load to put on your website, you have to consider who your customers are and how much it takes to stand out and keep them coming back. My business -- online publishing -- wrestles with it all the time. A site like Iggy's, which doesn't rely on online interactivity, big videos or 3D PDFs, can be really compact and fast -- except for his big photos. But sites in many visually and technically competitive businesses keep reaching for more. -- Ed Huntress |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 2015-12-31, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:17:50 -0600, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On 2015-12-31, Larry Jaques wrote: On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:49:39 -0600, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such. http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today. I said sure. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg DAMN, Ig. I've been meaning to ask you this for years now: _When_ are you going to learn how to process graphics for the web? Your images are all huge (5k x 3k pixels) and multi-megabyte. I pare a graphic like that down to 1024 largest dim and dice it to maybe 100kb. Each is done in under ten seconds, and each loads in seconds. Yours take nearly a minute on my 4mbs DSL to load. I realize that some pictures will need to be large to show details for a sale, but several smaller snippets from one would work better for you, I'm sure. Consider Photoshop or another image processing prog. I did consider this very deeply. I'm sorry we disagree so strongly on this. In my other life as a web designer, speed of a site was of utmost importance, and still is to me and many others. You may be on 50mbs cable now, but not everyone is. I very strongly believe in high resolution and quality of video and images. 320 pixel videos make me cringe. I agree. And have you seen the "videographers" out there with their phones? Most are less stable than Parkinsons afflictees. I get sick trying to watch the majority of YouTubers. I feel that on most websites with pictures, the pictures are way too small to be useful. So process larger pics for your site. Simple. 500kb is much better than 4mb per pic, and you lose no relevant detail. They are economizing on bytes that cost next to nothing, at the expense of clarity and ability to zoom in. I no longer view all your pics (limiting to one or two) for a project because those cheap bytes take so damned long to download on my mediocre DSL connection. Crom help those on dialup, like Jim. Way cool. Did you spend money on wages to help pick it up, or was it solely your job? I'd consider that money well spent, either way. What's the new Scotsman going to net you on eBay (or wherever)? JES Restaurant Supply has 'em for $8,653.84 Bwahahahaha! Merry Christmas! I think that Scotsman sells for $3,200 brand new. I will probably get 1.5k for it. http://tinyurl.com/hhkjd4b Isn't this your machine? Or is this a larger cousin? It is different. Yours is an ice maker. Mine is just a storage bin. No refrigeration equipment. i |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 2015-12-31, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:33:27 -0600, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On 2015-12-31, Bob Engelhardt wrote: On 12/30/2015 6:49 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" ... http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl ... Nice page - there is "No BS" flavor to it. Thank you! I did try to impart that flavor. One of my sources of inspiration on how to write websites for working people, is Vannatta Brothers forestry equipment website. http://vannattabros.com/ Those pictures are way too small to impart detail, Ig. bseg He has good sized pictures. He made his websites a long time ago, like 2008, and his pistures were top resolution for the time. Here's an example: view-source:http://www.vannattabros.com/skidder2.html scroll to the bottom for date embedded in HTML div class="dateline" - - Updated 03/21/2008 /div |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 2015-12-31, Ed Huntress wrote:
FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. The image size issue is something we wrestle with all the time in online magazines. At Fab Shop, we use an underlying PDF file, so our photos are JPEG-compressed like hell. What I do in most places, like my project pages, is that I provide thumbnails of decent quality, like 400x400. They link to pictures of very good quality (loosely defined). My ebay pictures are about 500 kb. There are two schools of thought: One is to juggle things to try to accomodate people with slow connections. The other is, if they have a slow connection, it's not worth it to lower quality for everyone else just to accomodate the others. If your intended readers are serious businesspeople, they almost certainly have the fastest connection that they can get. Surveys in the publishing business have indicated this. You presented facts that lead an inescapable conclusion, that it is more important to provide details to (most) people, who can afford good connections, rather than accommodate the remaining few who have a slow connection. Thumbnails, generally, alleviate this dilemma. Iggy's photos look like they're straight out of the camera (16 MP) and highest-quality JPEG, at around 5 MB, which is typical for the very slight JPEG compression that most cameras apply internally. Ig, you can squash the file size down a lot by using a medium-quality JPEG compression in Photoshop, GIMP, or whatever you use,, while leaving the image size alone. As it is, I can count the veins in the maple leaves on the ground. That's a little more than you need. g You really have to stomp on photos like that with lower-quality JPEG settings before you notice it. This is wrong. You may not need to see the veins on leaves on the ground, but there may be a model number,m serial number or some such, that you may want to zoom in. How many holes, shape of holes etc, comes up for many pictures and a good picture saves the viewer and publisher a lot of time. FWIW, for full-width magazine spreads, I typically run the JPEGS at around 3,000 - 4,000 pixel width, with compression that results in around 1.5 MB file size. They don't look much different than the results that then come out of the PDF squeeze machine, which are much smaller, and they have plenty of sharpness and detail. This is nice. |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 2015-12-31, David Billington wrote:
I look at Iggy's pictures occasionally and find them invariably slow to load, I had assumed it was his server but not looked at the size of the images. My ADSL is around 5Mbps so don't find many things a problem but it is getting worse as web designers add more "features", scripting is getting a pain with many sites and the NoScript add on is useful for that . When I did my website most people had dial-up so the first images people see are a sensible size for reasonably quick loading on a dial-up connection then if the viewer wants to see more they can click the image and get a larger version in a new window. I'm sure Iggy could do that easily and automate it. For my project pages, I do use thumbnails. In this instance, I did not feel that this story deserved a page of its own, and posted a link to the jpeg. i |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:24:40 -0600, Ignoramus24995
wrote: On 2015-12-31, Larry Jaques wrote: On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:17:50 -0600, Ignoramus24626 http://tinyurl.com/hhkjd4b Isn't this your machine? Or is this a larger cousin? It is different. Yours is an ice maker. Mine is just a storage bin. No refrigeration equipment. Oh, darn. You coulda been rich! -- Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. -- Scott Adams, 'The Dilbert Principle' |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:46:37 -0600, Ignoramus24995
wrote: On 2015-12-31, Ed Huntress wrote: FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. The image size issue is something we wrestle with all the time in online magazines. At Fab Shop, we use an underlying PDF file, so our photos are JPEG-compressed like hell. What I do in most places, like my project pages, is that I provide thumbnails of decent quality, like 400x400. They link to pictures of very good quality (loosely defined). My ebay pictures are about 500 kb. There are two schools of thought: One is to juggle things to try to accomodate people with slow connections. The other is, if they have a slow connection, it's not worth it to lower quality for everyone else just to accomodate the others. If your intended readers are serious businesspeople, they almost certainly have the fastest connection that they can get. Surveys in the publishing business have indicated this. You presented facts that lead an inescapable conclusion, that it is more important to provide details to (most) people, who can afford good connections, rather than accommodate the remaining few who have a slow connection. In general, that's true. That is, if you're doing business on the Web and not trying to make it easy for everyone to share it. Thumbnails, generally, alleviate this dilemma. Yes, a good policy. Iggy's photos look like they're straight out of the camera (16 MP) and highest-quality JPEG, at around 5 MB, which is typical for the very slight JPEG compression that most cameras apply internally. Ig, you can squash the file size down a lot by using a medium-quality JPEG compression in Photoshop, GIMP, or whatever you use,, while leaving the image size alone. As it is, I can count the veins in the maple leaves on the ground. That's a little more than you need. g You really have to stomp on photos like that with lower-quality JPEG settings before you notice it. This is wrong. You may not need to see the veins on leaves on the ground, but there may be a model number,m serial number or some such, that you may want to zoom in. How many holes, shape of holes etc, comes up for many pictures and a good picture saves the viewer and publisher a lot of time. No, it's right. If you've experimented with graphic file formats, you realize that most people GROSSLY underuse JPEG compression. Except with files that are originally photos of black-on-white text on sheets of paper, or converted vector files, you can stomp on those files a lot more with JPEG than most people realize. You don't need to reduce the pixels. You just reduce, initially, the noise. Here is an example. I copied one of your photos (2.10 MB), and then compressed it by an additional 72%. Take a look at the two. I snipped out pieces that show type in order to make it easier to see the point. If you can tell the difference, you have better eyes than mine. The "compressed" versions were saved at a setting of "7" (medium) in Photoshop: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ntxd797hl...xrZ-7Qpqa?dl=0 -- Ed Huntress |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:46:37 -0600, Ignoramus24995
wrote: On 2015-12-31, Ed Huntress wrote: FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. The image size issue is something we wrestle with all the time in online magazines. At Fab Shop, we use an underlying PDF file, so our photos are JPEG-compressed like hell. What I do in most places, like my project pages, is that I provide thumbnails of decent quality, like 400x400. They link to pictures of very good quality (loosely defined). No, you have not, in most instances I've seen. Some pages have specified a display size but the entire file has to download to display it at that rez. I don't recall ever seeing a fast-loading page from you in the past several years. Cites, please? My ebay pictures are about 500 kb. That would be a whole lot better. The file in question this time is exactly FIVE MEGABYTES and sized 5312x2988x16M. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg There are two schools of thought: One is to juggle things to try to accomodate people with slow connections. The other is, if they have a slow connection, it's not worth it to lower quality for everyone else just to accomodate the others. If your intended readers are serious businesspeople, they almost certainly have the fastest connection that they can get. Surveys in the publishing business have indicated this. You presented facts that lead an inescapable conclusion, that it is more important to provide details to (most) people, who can afford good connections, rather than accommodate the remaining few who have a slow connection. Atta Boy, Old Weird Ed! Serve the rich, **** the poor (and all the people who are not serviced by fast Internet by their providers). Thumbnails, generally, alleviate this dilemma. When used, yes they do. -- Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. -- Scott Adams, 'The Dilbert Principle' |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:42:52 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:46:37 -0600, Ignoramus24995 wrote: On 2015-12-31, Ed Huntress wrote: FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. The image size issue is something we wrestle with all the time in online magazines. At Fab Shop, we use an underlying PDF file, so our photos are JPEG-compressed like hell. What I do in most places, like my project pages, is that I provide thumbnails of decent quality, like 400x400. They link to pictures of very good quality (loosely defined). No, you have not, in most instances I've seen. Some pages have specified a display size but the entire file has to download to display it at that rez. I don't recall ever seeing a fast-loading page from you in the past several years. Cites, please? My ebay pictures are about 500 kb. That would be a whole lot better. The file in question this time is exactly FIVE MEGABYTES and sized 5312x2988x16M. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg There are two schools of thought: One is to juggle things to try to accomodate people with slow connections. The other is, if they have a slow connection, it's not worth it to lower quality for everyone else just to accomodate the others. If your intended readers are serious businesspeople, they almost certainly have the fastest connection that they can get. Surveys in the publishing business have indicated this. You presented facts that lead an inescapable conclusion, that it is more important to provide details to (most) people, who can afford good connections, rather than accommodate the remaining few who have a slow connection. Atta Boy, Old Weird Ed! Serve the rich, **** the poor (and all the people who are not serviced by fast Internet by their providers). We don't publish online magazines for the poor, Old Weird Larry. You may be thinking of _Poor Magazine_. We publish for metalworking companies. Thumbnails, generally, alleviate this dilemma. When used, yes they do. |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 2015-12-31, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:17:50 -0600, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On 2015-12-31, Larry Jaques wrote: [ ... ] http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg DAMN, Ig. I've been meaning to ask you this for years now: _When_ are you going to learn how to process graphics for the web? Your images are all huge (5k x 3k pixels) and multi-megabyte. I pare a graphic like that down to 1024 largest dim and dice it to maybe 100kb. Each is done in under ten seconds, and each loads in seconds. Yours take nearly a minute on my 4mbs DSL to load. I realize that some pictures will need to be large to show details for a sale, but several smaller snippets from one would work better for you, I'm sure. Consider Photoshop or another image processing prog. I did consider this very deeply. I'm sorry we disagree so strongly on this. In my other life as a web designer, speed of a site was of utmost importance, and still is to me and many others. You may be on 50mbs cable now, but not everyone is. I prefer to get maximum detail -- as I often zoom in to images. Even this one, where it appears that the smoker is missing a calibrated temperature knob. [ ... ] I feel that on most websites with pictures, the pictures are way too small to be useful. So process larger pics for your site. Simple. 500kb is much better than 4mb per pic, and you lose no relevant detail. How about a smaller image, and a link to download full resolution if desired? That could keep those with the slower downloads happy while satisfying those who prefer resolution like me as well. If I'm going to wait through a full download, I can certainly take the extra time for the smaller image to tell whether I *want* the complete image. FWIW -- my connection is a T1 (slower than some of the cable or FIOS ones, but far faster than dialup. :-) Or -- without using too much fancy new HTML -- is it possible to test the download speed at the start and offer smaller images if the speed is below some limit? (Ideally, this would work without javascript and other such extensions which are often disabled by the security-conscious. :-) Enjoy, DoN. -- Remove oil spill source from e-mail Email: | (KV4PH) Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 1 Jan 2016 03:36:44 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote: On 2015-12-31, Larry Jaques wrote: On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:17:50 -0600, Ignoramus24626 wrote: On 2015-12-31, Larry Jaques wrote: [ ... ] http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg DAMN, Ig. I've been meaning to ask you this for years now: _When_ are you going to learn how to process graphics for the web? Your images are all huge (5k x 3k pixels) and multi-megabyte. I pare a graphic like that down to 1024 largest dim and dice it to maybe 100kb. Each is done in under ten seconds, and each loads in seconds. Yours take nearly a minute on my 4mbs DSL to load. I realize that some pictures will need to be large to show details for a sale, but several smaller snippets from one would work better for you, I'm sure. Consider Photoshop or another image processing prog. I did consider this very deeply. I'm sorry we disagree so strongly on this. In my other life as a web designer, speed of a site was of utmost importance, and still is to me and many others. You may be on 50mbs cable now, but not everyone is. I prefer to get maximum detail -- as I often zoom in to images. Even this one, where it appears that the smoker is missing a calibrated temperature knob. What I'm suggesting is that he default to quicker pics, with a link to a full-sized, full-rez pic if people wish one. It's a small snippet of HTML which can be dropped in at will. [ ... ] I feel that on most websites with pictures, the pictures are way too small to be useful. So process larger pics for your site. Simple. 500kb is much better than 4mb per pic, and you lose no relevant detail. How about a smaller image, and a link to download full resolution if desired? That could keep those with the slower downloads happy while satisfying those who prefer resolution like me as well. If I'm going to wait through a full download, I can certainly take the extra time for the smaller image to tell whether I *want* the complete image. FWIW -- my connection is a T1 (slower than some of the cable or FIOS ones, but far faster than dialup. :-) Or -- without using too much fancy new HTML -- is it possible to test the download speed at the start and offer smaller images if the speed is below some limit? (Ideally, this would work without javascript and other such extensions which are often disabled by the security-conscious. :-) Sure. People who do that are called "web designers" and they tell their client how slowly the site loads at different speeds of Internet. Several programs used to do that for you, but it fell from grace. The last word: Ig wants detail and doesn't care about download speed. shrug -- Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. -- Scott Adams, 'The Dilbert Principle' |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
Larry Jaques wrote: On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:46:37 -0600, Ignoramus24995 wrote: On 2015-12-31, Ed Huntress wrote: FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. The image size issue is something we wrestle with all the time in online magazines. At Fab Shop, we use an underlying PDF file, so our photos are JPEG-compressed like hell. What I do in most places, like my project pages, is that I provide thumbnails of decent quality, like 400x400. They link to pictures of very good quality (loosely defined). No, you have not, in most instances I've seen. Some pages have specified a display size but the entire file has to download to display it at that rez. I don't recall ever seeing a fast-loading page from you in the past several years. Cites, please? My ebay pictures are about 500 kb. That would be a whole lot better. The file in question this time is exactly FIVE MEGABYTES and sized 5312x2988x16M. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg There is a local guy that sells EAS broadcast equipment to AM & FM radio stations. He uses huge image files, then thinks that the 'Constrain' command reduces the size before it is downloaded. I tried for over an hour to convince him to scale the images first. The server was so slow that one image took over 10 minutes to download. The size that it was displayed would have downloaded in about 15 seconds. So, the last time I looked, he still hadn't fixed it, and he was paying a higher fee to the hosting company because of his sloppy programming. |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On 31/12/15 21:42, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:49:12 +0000, David Billington wrote: On 31/12/15 17:44, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:41:12 -0600, dpb wrote: On 12/31/2015 10:45 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: ... FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. ... I guess that's fine for those who have access to such bandwidth; not all do (no matter what the cost might be). Again, if it's not business, it's better to accomodate slow connections. I look at Iggy's pictures occasionally and find them invariably slow to load, I had assumed it was his server but not looked at the size of the images. My ADSL is around 5Mbps so don't find many things a problem but it is getting worse as web designers add more "features", scripting is getting a pain with many sites and the NoScript add on is useful for that . When I did my website most people had dial-up so the first images people see are a sensible size for reasonably quick loading on a dial-up connection then if the viewer wants to see more they can click the image and get a larger version in a new window. I'm sure Iggy could do that easily and automate it. This is one of the ongoing debates among commercial companies on the Web, and there is a lot to discuss. Suffice to say that most people prefer the "richer" websites, and that 44 US states now have *average* broadband speeds above 10 Mbps download. A couple of days ago, NYC opened its first two free wifi kiosks, with gigabit wifi, in my son's neighborhood. They're installing 7,500 more. The state of NY is investing $500 million, with another $500 million provided by the private sector, to raise minimum download speeds to 100 Mbps throughout the state by 2019. Where I live, in NJ, the average is above 15 Mbps. The same is true for the other mid-Atlantic seaboard states, plus Washington and Utah. My service is 60 Mbps; for a few bucks more per month, I could have 100. That's where most of the customers are. A lot of RCM members live outside of metro areas, but they aren't typical of the majority of US users. So, again, if you're a business and you're deciding how much of a load to put on your website, you have to consider who your customers are and how much it takes to stand out and keep them coming back. My business -- online publishing -- wrestles with it all the time. A site like Iggy's, which doesn't rely on online interactivity, big videos or 3D PDFs, can be really compact and fast -- except for his big photos. But sites in many visually and technically competitive businesses keep reaching for more. Maybe I'm atypical but I find websites with lots of visual gimmickry off putting as it gets in the way of finding the information I want. Unless I know the information is on the site I will frequently go elsewhere for it and the OTT site gets ignored. One welding supplier site I had to put up with, the catalogue had simulated page turning which probably go the bods in marketing off but was a waste of time while looking at their products IMO. |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:17:18 +0000, David Billington
wrote: On 31/12/15 21:42, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:49:12 +0000, David Billington wrote: On 31/12/15 17:44, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:41:12 -0600, dpb wrote: On 12/31/2015 10:45 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: ... FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds. ... I guess that's fine for those who have access to such bandwidth; not all do (no matter what the cost might be). Again, if it's not business, it's better to accomodate slow connections. I look at Iggy's pictures occasionally and find them invariably slow to load, I had assumed it was his server but not looked at the size of the images. My ADSL is around 5Mbps so don't find many things a problem but it is getting worse as web designers add more "features", scripting is getting a pain with many sites and the NoScript add on is useful for that . When I did my website most people had dial-up so the first images people see are a sensible size for reasonably quick loading on a dial-up connection then if the viewer wants to see more they can click the image and get a larger version in a new window. I'm sure Iggy could do that easily and automate it. This is one of the ongoing debates among commercial companies on the Web, and there is a lot to discuss. Suffice to say that most people prefer the "richer" websites, and that 44 US states now have *average* broadband speeds above 10 Mbps download. A couple of days ago, NYC opened its first two free wifi kiosks, with gigabit wifi, in my son's neighborhood. They're installing 7,500 more. The state of NY is investing $500 million, with another $500 million provided by the private sector, to raise minimum download speeds to 100 Mbps throughout the state by 2019. Where I live, in NJ, the average is above 15 Mbps. The same is true for the other mid-Atlantic seaboard states, plus Washington and Utah. My service is 60 Mbps; for a few bucks more per month, I could have 100. That's where most of the customers are. A lot of RCM members live outside of metro areas, but they aren't typical of the majority of US users. So, again, if you're a business and you're deciding how much of a load to put on your website, you have to consider who your customers are and how much it takes to stand out and keep them coming back. My business -- online publishing -- wrestles with it all the time. A site like Iggy's, which doesn't rely on online interactivity, big videos or 3D PDFs, can be really compact and fast -- except for his big photos. But sites in many visually and technically competitive businesses keep reaching for more. Maybe I'm atypical but I find websites with lots of visual gimmickry off putting as it gets in the way of finding the information I want. Unless I know the information is on the site I will frequently go elsewhere for it and the OTT site gets ignored. One welding supplier site I had to put up with, the catalogue had simulated page turning which probably go the bods in marketing off but was a waste of time while looking at their products IMO. As I said earlier, this can become a lengthy discussion. g The issues here are the same ones that have been characteristic of hypertext since before there was a Web. I was involved with Cognetics' HyperTIES hypertext software for training programs back in the '80s, and the very same issues kept coming up. There are several reasons and objectives one may have in using any kind of hypertext. You may be searching for something specific. That requires an effective search engine. You may want to browse a product category. That requires moderate search capability combined with excellent navigation. Or you may want to browse and read. That requires good navigation and good reading, whether it's an HTML page, a flip book (the "simulated page turning" that you mentioned), or links to PDFs or other self-contained text/graphic files. In your case, you wanted effective search and you got a flip book. That's not very thoughtful Web design. A lot of Web designers do a poor job of thinking about how users are going to use it. They put in the geejaws without thinking. The really hard part is navigation. That has been a problem since the late '60s, when the US Air Force was developing Xanadu for training and maintenance support. The early hypertext implementations, like HyperCard and HyperTIES, focused on that and tried to distinguish themselves by having superior navigation. When hypertext moved to the Web, no navigation standard was developed or carried over, and the quality of navigation is all over the map -- mostly poor. It's mostly a random system of hyperlinks, with little or no way to know how all of the information is organized. Add to that the fact that most of the better, newer interactive hypertext capabilities require high-speed connections, and the situation is ripe for complaints from anyone who doesn't have at least, say, 10 Mbps download speeds. As we discussed, that's the speed that the majority of people in the US have. "High-speed" is defined as 25 Mbps by most organizations, and that's more or less the cost of admission for businesses that are using the Web these days. So you're not an atypical user, in the sense that you wanted search and you got flip-book. That's a mistake by the Web developer. But your speeds may be atypically low. Suck it up -- nobody is developing anything for speeds of less than 10 Mbps these days. On our site (www.fsmdirect.com) our focus is on browse-and-read, but we have search that will take you to quick-loading HTML articles of article subjects, product names, and so on. We keep working to improve it. Our basic feature is a flip book, which gives you embedded features like self-contained videos and, starting in about a week, interactive 3D Acrobat files. That's appropriate for a magazine but definitely NOT appropriate for a catalog, as you experienced. I suspect that many of our features are atrocious on slow connections, and maybe unuseable with dial-up. We don't get complaints about it because our readers are mostly from businesses that have high-speed. Iggy's situation is kind of unique. I can see his point that the high-res photos are important to him. He could save some download time by using more JPEG compression but the thumbnail/big-file combination is good, too. There's no way around it, though: Unless you have a high-speed Internet connection, you're going to keep growing more frustrated over time, as Web design assumes that you have high speed. -- Ed Huntress |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:49:39 -0600, Ignoramus24626
wrote: On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such. http://www.machinerymoverschicago.co...ry-removal.mpl This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today. I said sure. http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg Two hours later I was done. What that stuff in the above picture, is a new Scotsman ice bag cabinet, as well as a used "Ole Hickory" natural gas meat smoker. I kept asking the Russian Santa, called Ded Moroz, for something like that smoker, for years. Ded Moroz brings presents for the New Year, so, I think, he finally heard me and got me this on Dec 30. i Nice! I noticed the knobs are broken off on the smoker controls. Just the knobs are is the mechanism damaged as well? Gunner |
Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:05:37 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg DAMN, Ig. I've been meaning to ask you this for years now: _When_ are you going to learn how to process graphics for the web? Your images are all huge (5k x 3k pixels) and multi-megabyte. I pare a graphic like that down to 1024 largest dim and dice it to maybe 100kb. Each is done in under ten seconds, and each loads in seconds. Yours take nearly a minute on my 4mbs DSL to load. I realize that some pictures will need to be large to show details for a sale, but several smaller snippets from one would work better for you, I'm sure. Consider Photoshop or another image processing prog. IRFANVIEW is quick and easy. And yeah..took forever to load. http://www.irfanview.com/ And get the plugins/addons. Good stuff Maynard!! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter