Rob Mitchell responds:

As for content, a picture is a good thing if it is really necessary,
like a picture of an article I am bidding on on ebay. A huge flash
presentation that is automatically displayed for me is annoying even
with broadband. So is sound.

Yes. Flash sucks, and not as if it is a gloat. I forgot to hook up my speakers
for nearly three months after we moved. I then decided I wanted to listen to
some Bill Haley and the Comets, so hooked them up, but when music isn't on (it
isn't on often, because I don't like to try to work with it in the background),
the sound is turned almost off.

Charlie Self
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
2000

Silvan notes:

Charlie Self wrote:

I'd estimate at least 40% of my friends with computers have broadband. One
still has a 28.8 modem.

Hell, I've got a 56K modem, but I've got a 28K phone line.

You've *got* to try this modem I have sitting here. Fastest modem I ever
used.

Since I'm probably not going to manage the drive all the way to Bedford
anytime soon, maybe I can mail it to you if you email me your snail addy.

It's on the way, or will be in a few minutes. But, hey, the roads are clear.
Take a two hour break and make the round trip...but don't try to get a semi
down my drive. Getting down is OK. Getting out is a bitch. No turnaround, steep
90 deg. turn about 20 feet from the top with a 7' deep ditch on one side.


Charlie Self
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
2000

In article ,
Jeff P. wrote:
Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that the
14.4 modem was "smokin".


Bah! You're a newbie. grin

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,

In article ,
Jeff P. wrote:
Dreamweaver gives an estimated load time for your pages but I test them
anyway with my auxilary dial up line that Roadrunner provides. I've found
the times in Dreamweaver quite accurate. My goal is to keep all load times
in the 15 to 25 second range for a 56k connection.



A few pieces of advice:

1) Make sure any 'home'-type page(s) load _fast_. i.e., about 25Kbyte
*max*. 'Instant gratification' _is_ important for retaining the first-
time visitor.
2) Anything 'big' (i.e., over 25-50k) put a parenthetical after the link
that gives the approx. 'size' (in kbytes) of the page data. This is
called 'managing expectations' -- when people _know_ 'in advance' how
long they'll have to wait they tend to be much more tolerant of delays.
*AND*, those who know that they don't have the patience won't even _try_
the page.
3) consider putting up 'parallel' pages for low-speed, and high-speed,
access. If you're careful to make all the links on the page 'relative',
you can accomplish this by changing _only_ the 'base' tag at the top
of the page.
4) You can get amazing savings by reducing the number of 'colors' used in
an image. and JPGs are not always smaller than GIFs -- especially where
"thumbnails" are concerned. A *sixteen* color GIF may be entirely
adequate for a 'preview' shot.
5) consider using "frames". to allow _selective_re-drawing_ of *partial*
page content.



One other consideration is the _outbound_ bandwidth from your web-server.
If you're running it at the end of a DSL/cable connection, the 'upload'
speed limits of that connection can become a real problem. Especially if
multiple people hit the site at 'more-or-less' the same time.

i.e., if you've got a link with a 384K 'upload' speed, then *six* simultaneous
requests for a circa 150kbyte ("20 seconds at 56k") page will result in
at least 20-second 'load' times for _all_ the viewers. EVEN those with _multi-
megabit_ 'download' capabilities.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff P. wrote:
Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that
the
14.4 modem was "smokin".


Bah! You're a newbie. grin

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,


My first was one of those clickity, clackety teletype machines with an
acoustic coupler. You'd dial up a remote bulletin board, listen for the
beeeeeeeeep and jam the phone handset onto the modem. Mine even had a
paper punch to store some of my machine code programs. I'm glad those good
ole days are gone.

Larry

In article ,
igor wrote:
On 30 Jan 2005 18:15:00 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

All the telephone company is required to provide is voice-quality
communications. There is no requirement for any minimum data transfer
rate. I work for a state utility commission and hear folks complain
bout this quite a bit. You can call all you want; we don't have the
authority to require more. The only thing that is going to make the
telephone companies provide better internet service is for competition
to force it to do so.

Dick Durbin

Thanks for the comments. As you know, it is state-by-state. Maybe you've
seen a NARUC survey or just know that most/all states still only require
voice quality. I have not been in that "business" for a few years and was
extrapolating as to what I thought may have happened since then with the
regulators, w/ or w/o a state legislative push. Gore tax and all those
charges to support universal service. I figured by now that some state
governments, in order to support "economic development", etc. would have
required basic data quality at some level. Seems my thinking was too
wishful. Anyway, that is why I suggested going up the chain if the PUC/PSC
didn't/couldn't help. Could a state impose a data standard - directly OR
indirectly - that would effectively require 54K (versus 56K) connections?
Or, would that be considered something off-limits to state regulators under
the 1996 act or some FCC rule? Not a biggie; just wonderin' -- Igor


If FAX, at 14,400 (possibly even only 9600) will connect, *NO* public-utility
commission in the U.S. will take your complaint. Some won't take a
complaint if you can get a 1200 baud data connection.

Over POTS (analog) phone lines, _ALL_ speeds above 14,400 require end-to-end
circuit connections that are 'higher quality' (higher bandwidth, less distort-
ion, lower noise) than voice circuit specifications require. Even 14.4k is
running 'right at the limits' of the specifications.

Some limits are _inherent_physical_characteristics_ of the length of wire
between the customer premises and the telephone company switching equipment.
Needless to say, you _cannot_ legislate around the laws of physics. grin

(BTW, this is also the reason that you *cannot* get DSL 'out in the country'.)

Other -legal-restrictions- arise from the need not to interfere with 'adjacent'
phone circuits. This is why you -cannot_ get a true '56k' connection (only
54k max.) *anywhere* in the U.S., today. the actual 56k rate signalling puts
"too much" energy on the wire pair; over the limit established to prevent
interference (e.g. 'cross-talk') with adjacent circuits in the multi-pair
cable.


THEN you get into the situation, on "longer" phone lines, where there are
things that are needed to make voice work 'well', which are detrimental to
high-speed data. If the phone line is _tariffed_ as a "voice circuit",
guess which kind of things are *required* to be done to that line?

Alternatively, you can pay the -higher- tariff for a dedicated "data circuit",
and the telco _will_ 'remove" those 'things' from that wire-pair. One of the
things that you, the 'data circuit' customer _pay_extra_ for, however, is the
cost for a technician to _physically_ go out to the various points on the line
where those 'things' are installed, and disconnect them, *AND* the cost of his
time for the 'return trip' _after_ you're through with the circuit, to
*RE-CONNECT* them -- so the line can be used for "normal" voice service again.


Any change in the 'technical requirements' for phone service would simply
_have_ to "grandfather" in any _pre-existing_ 'physical plant'. If it
wasn't, considering that the ILEC _is_ a 'regulated' service, with rates
set by the government -- at a level that *guarantees* that the company
can/will make a 'reasonable' profit -- then the ILEC would immediately
file for a tariff increase to 'pay for' those required upgrades. Base
phone rates would probably climb somewhere between 500% and 5000% percent.

Oddly enough, _voice_ customer's aren't willing to pay *that* kind of money
for an 'upgrade' that *they* don't need. wry grin

Currently dialup 56K, switching to DSL this week. Tried RR a year or so
back, loved it, but couldn't afford it. Right now I've got DSL through my
local ISP for $29.90/mo. for 1 yr. with option to renew for 2nd yr. @ same
price.

9600 memories; mid 80's, data entry system running entry terminals @ 9600 on
a big MX'er, they were complaining of losing data. Watched the girls, they
were faster than the connection, over-running the buffers. They just had to
slow down a tiny bit.

--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.




"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff P. wrote:
Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that
the
14.4 modem was "smokin".


Bah! You're a newbie. grin

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,

Jeff P. wrote:
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and
I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that
some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of
you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but
I'll never
go back. How about all of you?

Jeff, I looked at your website, and thought I'd give you some pointers
as someone who has done design for nearly 10 years now.

On your home page, you're using the browser to resize your "pens"
picture. The quality on that particular graphic stinks, and you're
using up bandwidth because the entire pic has to d/l anyway. You
should resize it in your graphics software. In PS, I got that file
to be 9K in size (from 15k). The pic of the kid I got to 17K (from
23k).

IMO, I'd lose all the drop shadows. I find them annoying, and you're
going against convention and placing the light source in the upper
right instead of the upper left. It's somewhat disconcerting, and it
would save you time and bandwidth if you dropped them. Just use a
nice 1 px border with style sheets.

That's about it. Mostly in picture size. Your banners under Links I
got to under 8K each, that's half size.

If your hosting provider provides for some scripting, I would get rid
of your email address and make a form that people fill out. This will
eliminate any spam bots from gathering your email address.

We are on Direcway 6000 and could not be happier. It's a bit pricey for the
first 15 months but the 1100 bps or so is sure nice.

Phisherman wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and
I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that
some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a
slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most
of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but
I'll never
go back. How about all of you?


I'm on dialup. Broadband cable is too expensive here ($84/mo) and DSL
won't sync up (I guess too far from the Central Office), so I'm
sticking to the $12.95 a month. I suggest making thumbnails. Use
pictures no more than 150 dpi. Yes, I become impatient if I have to
wait more than a minute for a page to load.

DPI is meaningless when it comes to on display graphics. DPI is ONLY
used when printing images. Pixel quantity is the only measurement
that means anything on screen.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
go back. How about all of you?

Thanks for asking!

While I have a second line just for the computer, it's POTS and I'm
out in the country. I have two computers with 56K modems, desktop and
laptop. Desktop now has external hardware modem. Connects at 28.8K.
Same for the laptop.

To damn many website designers figure that everyone has a personal T1
line and design their site accordingly. They also assume that
everyone uses IE too. (I also have friends who like to forward
"funny" email with 2-megabyte file attachments. Mailwasher takes care
of those for me.)

For example, I wanted to shop Ford trucks. Ford's website wants me to
have Flash installed. (After hearing about the recent recall of Ford
trucks, I think that they installed "flash" under the hoods of their
trucks too.)

I emailed Ford and informed them that the percentage of the population
that is still on dialup was a lot higher than the percentage of the
population who drive Fords and if they wanted to improve that, they
had best fire their web designers and start over. I got an email
back, thanking me for my *email* and asking me to take a customer
survey about my experience. I said, what the hell and opened the
survey. The questions all related to my *telephone* call to customer
service. I'm sticking with my '98 Chevy.

Another example: I have an IRA at Schwab. They are constantly
bugging me to turn off paper statements and get them via the web. But
if I want a transaction history, I have to wait for an HTML table to
be generated. Then I can't get the underlying data so I have to print
it and this requires another wait while that is formatted. And I
still have a piece of paper, only it cost me to print it. I don't
have any money on deposit at Yahoo finance, but they give lots of info
in downloadable spreadsheet format for free. I use Firefox for a
browser. Some "features" at Schwab don't work correctly. When I call
their tech support they say, "Oh, you need to use IE." The customer
is always wrong.

From my perspective, give me your thoughts in text. If you need
pictures or graphics to make your case, put 'em in thumbnail form and
I'll look at them if necessary. My wife keeps my cookie jar full, I
don't need any from you, thanks anyway. I like to install my own
software as needed and I make my own coffee. Keep your Java to
yourself. Photographs need to be framed sometimes, but I don't need
them on my CRT. If you have numbers for me, give 'em to me in a
downloadable .csv file. If your document requires precise formatting,
better do it in .pdf that will survive different browser
idiosyncrasies.

Just my humble opinion.

A good web designer will allow you to skip heavy graphic AVIs and test
the site using Netscape, Opera, and Mozilla. Even better yet, the
designer can detect the connection speed, browser, and O/S and take
you to the page that will properly load in a reasonable time. The
Toyota web site sucked when all I wanted to get were dimensions and
towing capacity of their vehicles. The truth is that Americans buy
vehicles based on appearance more than anything else. And those web
site that play songs are irritating.


On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:49:15 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
go back. How about all of you?

Thanks for asking!

While I have a second line just for the computer, it's POTS and I'm
out in the country. I have two computers with 56K modems, desktop and
laptop. Desktop now has external hardware modem. Connects at 28.8K.
Same for the laptop.

To damn many website designers figure that everyone has a personal T1
line and design their site accordingly. They also assume that
everyone uses IE too. (I also have friends who like to forward
"funny" email with 2-megabyte file attachments. Mailwasher takes care
of those for me.)

For example, I wanted to shop Ford trucks. Ford's website wants me to
have Flash installed. (After hearing about the recent recall of Ford
trucks, I think that they installed "flash" under the hoods of their
trucks too.)

I emailed Ford and informed them that the percentage of the population
that is still on dialup was a lot higher than the percentage of the
population who drive Fords and if they wanted to improve that, they
had best fire their web designers and start over. I got an email
back, thanking me for my *email* and asking me to take a customer
survey about my experience. I said, what the hell and opened the
survey. The questions all related to my *telephone* call to customer
service. I'm sticking with my '98 Chevy.

Another example: I have an IRA at Schwab. They are constantly
bugging me to turn off paper statements and get them via the web. But
if I want a transaction history, I have to wait for an HTML table to
be generated. Then I can't get the underlying data so I have to print
it and this requires another wait while that is formatted. And I
still have a piece of paper, only it cost me to print it. I don't
have any money on deposit at Yahoo finance, but they give lots of info
in downloadable spreadsheet format for free. I use Firefox for a
browser. Some "features" at Schwab don't work correctly. When I call
their tech support they say, "Oh, you need to use IE." The customer
is always wrong.

From my perspective, give me your thoughts in text. If you need
pictures or graphics to make your case, put 'em in thumbnail form and
I'll look at them if necessary. My wife keeps my cookie jar full, I
don't need any from you, thanks anyway. I like to install my own
software as needed and I make my own coffee. Keep your Java to
yourself. Photographs need to be framed sometimes, but I don't need
them on my CRT. If you have numbers for me, give 'em to me in a
downloadable .csv file. If your document requires precise formatting,
better do it in .pdf that will survive different browser
idiosyncrasies.

Just my humble opinion.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
go back. How about all of you?

I try to design both commercial and personal sites for the "lowest
common denominator"...
We tend to build stuff the way WE want to look at it.... high res,
lots of flash and graphics, etc.... and the average guy can't or won't
wait to get there before hitting the BACK button..

Apart from having a mirror site and diverting the broadband folks
there, the best bet might be to build it "lean & mean" with a lot of
links to graphics and stuff labeled "suggested for broadband only" or
something like that..

If you've been on a dialup and had to wait for the graphics and flash
opening page of a complex site, you know what I man.. *g*



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

In article ,
Phisherman wrote:
A good web designer will allow you to skip heavy graphic AVIs and test
the site using Netscape, Opera, and Mozilla.

That is what a *mediocre* web designer will do. Admittedly, that *is* a step
above what a "M$ brainwashed" one does.

A _good_ designer *knows* that there are _standards_ -- which describe a base
set of capabilities that =all= web-browsers support; writes _to_ those
standards, *and* employs a 'validator' to TEST FOR COMPLIANCE with those
aforementioned standards.

A good designer also checks site functionality using a browser like "LYNX",
which runs on text-only dumb terminals, doesn't attempt graphics in any form,
and doesn't do Java, Javascript, Flash, or any of the rest of that cr*p.

A good designer may _use_ those 'flash & sizzle' whiz-bang gadgets, but he
will also ensure that the site is 100% functional _without_ any of them.

*GOOD* web designers are _very_ scarce!

Make that very, Very, *V*E*R*Y* scarce.

Unfortunately.

Even better yet, the
designer can detect the connection speed, browser, and O/S

FALSE! Utterly, and totally.

1) Connection speed is _not_ available. Even if it were, it wouldn't
mean diddly-squat -- except in the case of a dial-up connection.
The 'limiting' factor in Internet transmissions is the 'smallest pipe'
_anywhere_ between source and destination. Even for home users -- and
especially those with a broadband connection -- the connection out of
the "PC" is at _Ethernet_ (or 'fast Ethernet) speeds, i.e. 10mbit/sec
(or 100mbit/sec). *BUT* this poor victim is connected via an ISDL
circuit, configured for PPPOE, and he's got a maximum _effective_
throughput of only about 115kbit/sec. *GUESS*WHAT*HAPPENS* if the
server-side "assumes" he's on a fat pipe, and throws the 'graphics
intensive' version at him.

*EXCEPT* in the case of a direct dial-up connection, the connection
speed out of the desktop machine is _rarely_ (*VERY* rarely) the
'limiting factor' on data transfer rates.

2) 'browser' and 'O/S' a
(a) _optional_ data, not necessarily supplied
(b) *when* supplied, the data are 'whatever the requestor _chooses_
to report', which may, or may *not* have any relationship to
reality.
(c) *MEANINGLESS*, if the page "designer" is not aware of the
'oddities' of _that_ particular browser implementation. Or has
not taken the time/effort to code up handling for that _specific_
set of weirdness. There are more browsers, *and* operating
systems, out there than anyone can be reasonably expected to:
[i] keep track of, [ii] keep current on the vagaries of, or
[iii] program for. So *what* do you do, when the 'claimed'
browser does _not_ match one you 'know about'? Tell the user to
'go away', and come back only if he has a 'compatible' browser?
Put up a 'standard' page that works with _any_ browser? (H*ll, if
you have _that_, why bother with the 'browser specific' variants?)


Again, this is the "M$-brainwashed" approach to the issue. Write it the first
time, using the vendor-specific (aka 'proprietary') extensions. Then, to
make it work for 'most' of the "rest of the world", try to figure out if
it is the MS browser, or 'something else', and for each _recognized_ "something
else", code up "yet another" set of vendor-specific (aka 'proprietary') garbage
that works only for _that_ browser. And if you _don't_ recognize what the
potential customer is using for a web browser, tell them to 'go away' -- after
all, you don't need that 'fringe' business.

Alternatively, you write _to_the_standards_, *verify* standards compliance,
double-check with several commonly available browsers (because they _are_ known
to ignore the standards in some cases), and have something that *everybody*
can use.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

1. Write program on coding sheets.
2. Give to keypuncher.
3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
interpreter).
5. Hand deck to computer operator.
6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
7. Check results.
8. Find bug - start over.

I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).

You forgot 5a. Drop deck and spill cards on floor ... start over.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

In article , -
bonomi.com says...
Bah! You're a newbie. grin

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,


And the BBS's only downloaded new messages once a day. so your effective
turnaround was 24 hours :-).

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

1. Write program on coding sheets.
2. Give to keypuncher.
3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
interpreter).
5. Hand deck to computer operator.
6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
7. Check results.
8. Find bug - start over.

I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:26:22 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

I only did this stuff once, when I took an in-house Fortran course. I
modified the steps slightly:

1. Write program on coding sheets.
2. Give to keypuncher.

2a. Started dating Keypunch operator.

3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours

3a. No waiting.

4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
interpreter).
5. Hand deck to computer operator.

5a. Set up date for later.

6 Wait - depending on your priority level.

6a. Batch processing overnight. Take keypunch operator to dinner,
etc.

7. Check results.

7a. Morning coffee with keypunch operator.

8. Find bug - start over.

Yes.

"Maverick" wrote in message
...
We are on Direcway 6000 and could not be happier. It's a bit pricey for
the
first 15 months but the 1100 bps or so is sure nice.

Which plan are you on, and how much is it after the first 15 months? I will
be moving to a non-cable area later this year, and in order to keep my
business running smoothly, I need to put in a satellite dish for internet.
I have looked at DirecWay but not found a lot of third-party comments on it.

Jon E

"Larry Bud" wrote in message
oups.com...

On your home page, you're using the browser to resize your "pens"
picture. The quality on that particular graphic stinks, and you're
using up bandwidth because the entire pic has to d/l anyway. You
should resize it in your graphics software.

I appreciate the comments Larry. I missed the fact that that pic was
resized. Not intentional. I resized it just to see what size I wanted it
and then forgot to go back into PS and do it for real. It's too big now
even when resized in browser. I'm still in the process of optimizing all
the graphics and the links page was one that I've yet to tackle.


IMO, I'd lose all the drop shadows. I find them annoying, and you're
going against convention and placing the light source in the upper
right instead of the upper left. It's somewhat disconcerting, and it
would save you time and bandwidth if you dropped them. Just use a
nice 1 px border with style sheets.


I really like the drop shadow but I guess you can't please everyone. I
wanted a look as though it was all laying on a table in front of you.
While convention may dictate that the light comes from the other way(I
didn't know that), I can't see that it matters much at all. I like em so
I'll keep em in (at least until version 3.0) but I thank you for your
comments.



If your hosting provider provides for some scripting, I would get rid
of your email address and make a form that people fill out. This will
eliminate any spam bots from gathering your email address.


That's an awesome idea. I haven't had any problem as of yet with spam on
that add but time will tell it's been up for over a year now). Might be
that a form would make it easier for people to leave feedback or drop a
line.

One question. I added a layer centering behavior because I just think it
looks better centered but what do you think? Just did it this morning so if
you didn't visit today (Monday) check back.

Thanks again

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:26:22 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

1. Write program on coding sheets.
2. Give to keypuncher.
3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
interpreter).
5. Hand deck to computer operator.
6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
7. Check results.
8. Find bug - start over.

I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).

You forgot 5a. Drop deck and spill cards on floor ... start over.


That's what columns 72-80 are for, sequencing. Or, you can draw a
diagonal over the edge of the deck using one of several colors of
highlighters. We didn't have the luxury of keypunch operators, but
used the 029s until TSO came along.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:19:11 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
go back. How about all of you?

I try to design both commercial and personal sites for the "lowest
common denominator"...
We tend to build stuff the way WE want to look at it.... high res,
lots of flash and graphics, etc.... and the average guy can't or won't
wait to get there before hitting the BACK button..

Keep in mid that the Web is a three-dimensional medium. The third
dimension isn't depth -- it is time.

Further remember that flash and graphics -- unless used wisely --
produce a lower-quality experience for the viewer. For example looping
animations may look neat, but they're highly distracting because the
pull the eye away from the information.

One of the problems with Web designers is that most of them are either
re-tread graphic designer or (worse) video people, or they were
trained by graphic and video designers. Even after all this time a lot
of them still don't have their heads around the fact that the Web is a
different medium with significantly different rules.

(Okay, I'll shut up now and go take my pill. But I feel much better.
Thanks.)

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Phisherman wrote:
A good web designer will allow you to skip heavy graphic AVIs and test
the site using Netscape, Opera, and Mozilla.

That is what a *mediocre* web designer will do. Admittedly, that *is* a
step
above what a "M$ brainwashed" one does.

A _good_ designer *knows* that there are _standards_ -- which describe a
base
set of capabilities that =all= web-browsers support; writes _to_ those
standards, *and* employs a 'validator' to TEST FOR COMPLIANCE with those
aforementioned standards.

A good designer also checks site functionality using a browser like
"LYNX",
which runs on text-only dumb terminals, doesn't attempt graphics in any
form,
and doesn't do Java, Javascript, Flash, or any of the rest of that cr*p.

A good designer may _use_ those 'flash & sizzle' whiz-bang gadgets, but he
will also ensure that the site is 100% functional _without_ any of them.

*GOOD* web designers are _very_ scarce!

Make that very, Very, *V*E*R*Y* scarce.

Unfortunately.

Man, if only more web sites worked right on LYNX, the world would be a
better place.

todd

DSL by PacBell/Yahoo.
"Jeff P." wrote in message
...
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

The best available here is 26.4K

--
Ross
www.myoldtools.com
"Jeff P." wrote in message
...
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article , -
bonomi.com says...
Bah! You're a newbie. grin

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,


And the BBS's only downloaded new messages once a day. so your effective
turnaround was 24 hours :-).

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

1. Write program on coding sheets.
2. Give to keypuncher.
3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
interpreter).
5. Hand deck to computer operator.
6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
7. Check results.
8. Find bug - start over.

Heck, I went to a _modern_ university -- they let the students use the
keypunch machines themselves.

Then there was the day I went into the prep room, and saw a friend of
mine sitting at one of the work-tables, staring disconsolately at a print-out,
with a _moderately small_ deck (maybe 80-100) of cards beside him.

I went up, looked over his shoulder, and said "OH! the problem is obvious."

He looks up, and says (hopefully) "what is it?"

I said: "FORTRAN programs have to be on the cards with the purple stripe."

He, *knowing* I was pulling his leg, replied, absolutely deadpan: "Oh, so
_that's_ it. They told us that in class, I should have remembered."

At about this point, some kid sitting on the other side of the table, with
a *BIG* deck (like almost an entire 'box') of _plain_ cards, comes out of his
seat like a marionette on wires, eyes bugged out of his head, and in a rising
wail of absolutely *petrified* anguish/despair exclaims:

"FORTRAN has to be on the *PURPLE* cards????!!!!!!!"

Neither my friend or I could keep a straight face, and broke out laughing.
A few moments later one of us manages to explain that we were just joking,
and the guy collapses back into his chair.

I don't think I've ever seen anybody else so close to having to go change
underwear, just as a result of something that was _said_.


I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).

Should I mention plug-board programming an IBM 046 ??

Or analyzing timing for various algorithms for dividing a large collating
job among multiple 049 sorters?

In article ,
Swingman wrote:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

1. Write program on coding sheets.
2. Give to keypuncher.
3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
interpreter).
5. Hand deck to computer operator.
6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
7. Check results.
8. Find bug - start over.

I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).

You forgot 5a. Drop deck and spill cards on floor ... start over.

That is followed by 5b -- insert sequence number in 'comments' field on
*every*line* on the coding form.

(Then you can just pick up the 'scrambled' deck, make a few passes through
the 'sorter', and have everything back in the right order.)

It only takes one or two experiences with 'un-numbered' decks for the
'wisdom' to sink in. voice of "too much" experience speaking

Should I mention plug-board programming an IBM 046 ??

Or analyzing timing for various algorithms for dividing a large collating
job among multiple 049 sorters?

Hmm an IBM 046 was a non-interpreting paper tape to keypunch (basically an 024
keypunch with a paper tape reader) and sorters were 080, 082, 083 or 084.
Do you mean a Daystrom 046?

We can certainly talk about plugging 407s and 557s if you like ;-)

You could also chat about the ******* child of an 082 sorter and a 402 EAM, the
101.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...

sniperoo

Should I mention plug-board programming an IBM 046 ??

Early 60's, programmer nick-named "Smoky". Changed program by pulling *one*
end of wire(yep, "hot" end was still plugged in), closed panel, it started
smoking. He turned it off, left room, announced "It's Broke" and returned to
his cell.

--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.

Larry Blanchard apparently said,on my timestamp of 1/02/2005 5:50 AM:

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,

Hehehe! Carrier pigeons anyone?

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

Ah yes. My pet hate was the Hollerith punching machine:
the crap computer dept at uni couldn't afford electric ones,
so students had to punch Fortran programs with the manual
puncher, one column-at-a-time... ARRRGHH!

Shall I mention the demented coronel who wanted us to
destroy the confetti for security reasons?

I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).


Oh yes we would!

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
am

Sorry this is so off topic for a WW NG. Just helping a fellow
Woodworker...

I appreciate the comments Larry. I missed the fact that that pic was
resized. Not intentional. I resized it just to see what size I
wanted it
and then forgot to go back into PS and do it for real. It's too big
now
even when resized in browser. I'm still in the process of optimizing
all
the graphics and the links page was one that I've yet to tackle.

You don't mention the version of PS, but you should be doing a "Save
for Web" to save these as JPGs, then change the "quality" slider down,
IMO around 50-60 on most pics works great.

If your hosting provider provides for some scripting, I would get
rid
of your email address and make a form that people fill out. This
will
eliminate any spam bots from gathering your email address.


That's an awesome idea. I haven't had any problem as of yet with
spam on
that add but time will tell it's been up for over a year now). Might
be
that a form would make it easier for people to leave feedback or drop
a
line.

It's actually a little more of a pain for the user since if they want a
response they have to type in their email address, but I think it's
worth it. I get ZERO spam.

One question. I added a layer centering behavior because I just
think it
looks better centered but what do you think? Just did it this
morning so if
you didn't visit today (Monday) check back.

I personally like things left justified and if you notice nearly every
commerical website everything is LJ, but since this isn't a business I
allow for a little more creativity... I just looked at your source and
if you're concerned about bandwidth, you did the centering the hard
way!

Just place all your content in a 1 celled table that is centered. Also
not sure why you're preloading a bunch of images, or if that code is
just left over from something else.

What are you using to do your development?

Here's some great tips:

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com

There's an "old" saying in web design: What Would Amazon Do? They
are IT as far as selling products online. Here's a few things Amazon
does without you probably noticing it:

-FEW images for navigation, and those that are there are quite small.
All of the tabs at the top are less than 2k.
-The links under the tabs are text only.
-Take a look at the physical size of all the pics on the page. The
largest one I see on the home page right now is 90x90 pixels.
-Their content is not fixed width. As you change the width of your
browser, the width of the page expands to fill. This is done with
tables, not Divs or Layers.
-Style sheets, style sheets, style sheets. If you're not familiar with
them, they allow you to define a "style" which is a set of attributes
that you apply to different components of your page. For example, the
main text in your site could have a style, and if you ever want to
change the font size, for example, you only have to change it in 1
place, and it can apply to the entire site.

A _good_ designer *knows* that there are _standards_ -- which
describe a base
set of capabilities that =all= web-browsers support; writes _to_
those
standards, *and* employs a 'validator' to TEST FOR COMPLIANCE with
those
aforementioned standards.

A good designer also checks site functionality using a browser like
"LYNX",
which runs on text-only dumb terminals, doesn't attempt graphics in
any form,
and doesn't do Java, Javascript, Flash, or any of the rest of that
cr*p.

Obviously a company has to decide what the ROI is on developing for
every possible combo. I think it would be pretty ridiculous to test
for a non graphics based platform when the OPs website is mainly
pictures of his projects. I agree with Flash and Java issue, but not
on JS.

*GOOD* web designers are _very_ scarce!
Make that very, Very, *V*E*R*Y* scarce.
Unfortunately.

We know how to do it, we just don't have the time to do it. I think if
the OP hits 98% of the viewers out there, he'll be doing just fine.
Here's some browser usage stats:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

In article ,
Noons wrote:
Larry Blanchard apparently said,on my timestamp of 1/02/2005 5:50 AM:

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,

Hehehe! Carrier pigeons anyone?

Are you referring to RFC1149-compliant, or RFC 2549-compliant, pigeons?

Charlie Self wrote:

It's on the way, or will be in a few minutes. But, hey, the roads are
clear. Take a two hour break and make the round trip...

More like three or four once I go through all 14,967 stoplights,
Charlie.

I've only driven to Roanoke once in the last couple of years on my own dime.
I hate the trip to Roanoke. Too damn much traffic. Being in all that
traffic when I'm only 2" off the ground in a little piece of aluminum foil
with only four wheels makes me uneasy, I guess.

Plus I'm just a home body. I drive for a living, but if there's no living
at stake, I don't go further than the shopping mecca/cesspool just over the
hill from here. I have gas, food, Lowe's, Wal-Mart all within a mile, and
SWMBO does 99% of that shopping too, so I rarely go even that far. Once or
twice a year I make the big trek all the way into town to go to the lumber
store.

I'm just saying it's nothing personal. I just don't get out much unless I
have to. Bedford might as well be in British Columbia for all the
likelihood that I will find myself in that corner of the world anytime
soon.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

I get ZERO spam.


Somebody must be filtering it for you. I have a couple accounts I have never
used for anything but there is always spam in the mailbox. I think ISPs sell
your name. (Comcast, AOL etc)

On 01 Feb 2005 16:13:07 GMT, Greg wrote:
I get ZERO spam.


Somebody must be filtering it for you. I have a couple accounts I have never
used for anything but there is always spam in the mailbox. I think ISPs sell
your name. (Comcast, AOL etc)

I pay 30 bucks a year or so to spamcop.net, and they block 98-99% of the
spam sent to me. If I ran Windows, I'd buy zaep (zaep.com) which does
a one time authorization of senders - unless a friend turns into a spammer,
you'll get exactly no spam.

Dave Hinz

Phisherman wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:26:22 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message


Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

1. Write program on coding sheets.
2. Give to keypuncher.
3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
interpreter).
5. Hand deck to computer operator.
6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
7. Check results.
8. Find bug - start over.

I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).

You forgot 5a. Drop deck and spill cards on floor ... start over.



That's what columns 72-80 are for, sequencing. Or, you can draw a
diagonal over the edge of the deck using one of several colors of
highlighters. We didn't have the luxury of keypunch operators, but
used the 029s until TSO came along.

No one, well almost no one, uses 72-80 until they do 5A. when you
punched your own every 'saved' stroke helped.
Joe

Greg wrote:
I get ZERO spam.


Somebody must be filtering it for you. I have a couple accounts I
have never
used for anything but there is always spam in the mailbox. I think
ISPs sell
your name. (Comcast, AOL etc)

Nope. I have my own domain name, and create my own mailbox accounts on
that domain. There is a filtering option at the server level, but I
have it turned off.

The only account I occasionally get spam is a mailbox named "sales",
and I would imagine that the email bots just see the domain name and
send to commonly named mailbox account. Even then I just get 4 or 5 a
YEAR.

Used a 101 in '56-'57 at Science Research Associates,

I had the opportunity to go fix a 101 in Spanish Town Jamaica (typebar emitter
dirty).
I think that and a keypunch was the whole data processing department in 1967.
I was on my way to Gitmo to fix three 056s and an 047 when the Jamaica branch
manager grabbed me.

Silvan writes:

It's on the way, or will be in a few minutes. But, hey, the roads are
clear. Take a two hour break and make the round trip...

More like three or four once I go through all 14,967 stoplights,
Charlie.

I've only driven to Roanoke once in the last couple of years on my own dime.
I hate the trip to Roanoke. Too damn much traffic. Being in all that
traffic when I'm only 2" off the ground in a little piece of aluminum foil
with only four wheels makes me uneasy, I guess.

Screw Roanoke, though it can be a problem--I came around and out 460 into
Bedford itself today, and you may be right about the number of lights.

Up 581/220 to 24. Stay on 24 until you get to 43 and turn right. I'm not sure
how many lights there are, maybe a half dozen in Roanoke, but on 24 there's
only one, where it crosses 122 something like five miles from here.

Ah well. Some day you'll come get that fence. Before I cut it down and install
it on a bandsaw.

Charlie Self
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
2000

In article ,
says...
We can certainly talk about plugging 407s and 557s if you like ;-)

You could also chat about the ******* child of an 082 sorter and a 402 EAM, the
101.

Used a 101 in '56-'57 at Science Research Associates, the folks who were
doing the National Merit Scholarships, etc., before IBM bought them.

BTW, I still have a couple of manuals (403 and 077 IIRC) and an IBM load
calculator. Wonder what those'd bring on Ebay :-).

Not to mention a Univac manual :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description