I am experimenting with image qualities in an effort to make your download time for documents less painful. I suspect that the bottom line will be images with average download times of 5 - 7 minutes, which is still pretty slow but much, much faster than the reported 20 to 30 minute killers of which I've only recently been made aware.
The bad news is, even at the lowest quality, which is nearly unreadable, it still took 2 minutes to download an average sized document with a dial-up.
The next step I take if I can't find a balance is to include a link to a zipped file, but that's a pretty big step and I want to exhaust all my other options before I do that.
Thank you for reading, and apparently opening up a document before going to bed, then waking up in the morning to read them.
;)
Curtis
P.S. Dial - up customers, please feel free to write in, (anonymously if you want,) and report your document download times so I can zero in. I gave up my dial-up modem 17 years ago and am totally flying blind. The better information I have about your real life experiences, the better I can serve you.
Copyright (c)2007-2010 Curtis Bloes
All Rights Reserved
The resolution of the images is nearly as important as their size. Try saving them at very low resolution, which is all you need for Internet display anyway
ReplyDeleteIn the post The word image quality = resolution.
ReplyDeleteSize = how many k there are in the file.
X x Y matters very little
Resolution and size of the file go hand in hand.
Documents are a different story. At very low resolution tiny cursive writing with blurry 6 point type is unreadable, so I'm experimenting. Do you have a report for how long any of today's posts took you to download with your dial-up modem?
http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=aV1pYdQ9
ReplyDeleteNods. Flickr does the same thing, and I've been contemplating that sort off solution. BUT those elderly readers with poor eyesight might not be able to read the small dimension image you have presented, so I'm trying to get the resolution down but maintain the dimensions of 690px wide and (y) long and have it still be readable in a package that is less than 40k in size.
ReplyDeleteTo emphasize. The solution will leave the image at 690px wide by Ypx high. That's non-negotiable. Occasionally I'll be able to cheat that down a lttle, but never to 384px wide
ReplyDelete