Picture load times...?

[redoakranch]

Hey gang, looking for some feedback on just how awful these are... ;-)

http://redoakranch.x10hosting.com/indoor_photos.html

Eventually I hope to showcase the finished pieces I have for sale, but as I work in a very small scale for a very exacting market (model horse showing can get just as fiercely competitive as any Grand Prix jumpoff), I feel like I'm walking a tightrope between glorious in-your-FACE-details and blowing through bandwidth like it's going out of style. Erk...

 

[essellar]

Let your users decide -- use smaller images on the main page, and link to more detailed versions. You don't necessarily have to go down to "thumbnail" size -- something at, say, 400px max dimension will give the casual viewer enough info to decide whether or not they want to investigate further (things like colour, blaze and so on will catch their eye at that resolution).

 

[redoakranch]

Thanks for the suggestion, especially the thumbnail size recommendation. Gives me an idea of what to shoot for (so to speak).

 

[carl6969]

They are very good pictures IMHO but I completely agree with Essellar that you should use smaller images linking to larger images. The page actually loaded very fast for me but that will vary greatly depending on a particular users hardware, connection speed, and connection quality. Any potential problems with this will be greatly reduced with smaller image linking to larger image concept. This is a practice I use quite a bit as several of my websites have over a hundred pictures.

Carl
43 61 72 6c

 

[redoakranch]

Okay, hopefully this is getting a little better...

http://redoakranch.x10hosting.com/work_inprogress.html

I'm driving myself a little nuts (as usual) by writing everything from SCRATCH, but I think I learn more that way.

First thing I learned: there's more than a few html tags that have been classified as "deprecated" since I last played with web pages...and that was back when I had a site in the SoHo neighborhood of Geocities. lol