Re: new DirectX Oracle online monitor

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<406964ce$0$20085$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "Boaz Laufer" <lauferb_at_adit-tec.com> wrote in message
> news:1bacd337.0403300319.47d1afd4_at_posting.google.com...
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
> news:<405f3bca$0$31903$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > > "Boaz Laufer" <lauferb_at_adit-tec.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1bacd337.0403220958.799a765f_at_posting.google.com...
> > > > Hello DBA's,
> > > > I'd like to invite you to my site to try my new DirectX based oracle
> online monitor.
> > > > The name is 'SGAgent'.
> > > >
> > > > http://boazl.com
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Boaz.
> > >
> > > A suggestion: instead of sprinkling your site with bitmaps, why not
> > > investigate a graphics tool that converts BMPs to JPGs. And hopefully
> one
> > > which reduces the colour depth and size of your JPGs. 190K for a
> screenshot
> > > is a bit excessive.
> > >
> > > That way, your web page might load in a reasonable time, and you won't
> lose
> > > quite so many visitors who can't be bothered waiting.
> >
> >
> > I tried to reduce the color depth but it looked awful...
>
> Ever heard of JPGs (which can have 24-bit colour depth yet compress bitmaps
> dramatically)?? Or thumbnails?

I did use JPG's for the screen-shot pictures BMP's I used only for the small images (19KB)

>
> > but come on!
> > 190 KB is a lot for a picture???
>
> Yes it is actually. Especially when you have so many of them on the one
> page. It's bad design. General consensus as far as I've been able to
> determine it is that anything over 50K is a bit suspect. At the very least,
> when you've got something like that, you should give your viewers a chance
> to skip the download process (a "low graphics" version, for example).
>
> > what is your Insternet speed?
>
> Slow. The same as pretty much everybody who isn't on broadband.
>
> It's bad design and not a little arrogant to make assumptions about what
> people you don't know consider acceptable with respect to download speeds
> and download quantities. It also looks amateurish and does nothing to
> enhance the sense of professionalism or lack thereof inherent in your actual
> utility.

It's not arrogant to assume that people have faster internet than you do. If your internet connection is so slow you can always use non-graphical browsers. Many web sites use flash and MPEGS and more stuff that takes MB's and not KB's What do you have to say about those sites? Arrogant too? Received on Wed Mar 31 2004 - 01:52:03 CST