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

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'

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

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

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

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)

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.

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

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

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

"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?

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.

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'

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'

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'

"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

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.

--

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

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

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).

--

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

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...

--

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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'

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

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'

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.

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 ---

On 2015-12-31, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:05:37 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:49:39 -0600, Ignoramus24626
wrote:

[ ... ]

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

[ ... ]

Consider Photoshop or another image processing prog.

[ ... ]

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)

I believe that Iggy uses linux by preference, so neither
Photoshop nor IrfanView are available choices. However, "the GIMP" will
do it all, and is also free. (And -- he probably uses it already.)

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 ---

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'

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.

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.

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

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

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!!