26 Replies Latest reply on Aug 16, 2007 2:39 PM by Newsgroup_User

    OT - Feedback

    destind4film Level 1
      I had tried posting this in a different thread, but it vanished...not sure why. I don't think this is a violation of the TOU.

      So I was hoping to get some good feedback on some of my previous work and current sites. I am working on redesigning my first three sites and a second set of eyes is always helpful. Some of these are not 100% complete cause my friends and/or family are dragging their feet with getting me the missing content.

      http://www.dvdflashbacks.com/
      *** This was my first web site, redesign is in the works

      http://www.fotoflashbacks.com/
      *** Spin off site just a palette swap really, I liked my first use of flash on the mosaic page though.

      http://www.webflashbacks.com/
      *** Don't know what to say...this is just a placeholder page at this point

      http://www.fccexams.com/

      http://www.blueoceancommercial.com

      http://www.dvdflashbacks.com/williamsburghealth/
      *** i am most proud of this one, I think it is a major improvement over my brother's original design


      Thanks in advance for taking the time to check out my works in progress!
        • 1. Re: OT - Feedback
          joeq Level 1
          the first three make my eyes bleed.... there's so much going on that it's really hard to look at. i closed the window almost immediately.

          sorry...
          • 2. Re: OT - Feedback
            destind4film Level 1
            Not exactly what I was hoping for as a constructive critique...but I appreciate your time just the same.

            Thanks anyway.
            • 3. Re: OT - Feedback
              joeq Level 1
              you might not like to hear it – but my comment was constructive. ("unconstructive", by the way, would've been if i made some sort of random and unrelated attack... which i obviously didn't do.)

              your sites are too busy and they're visually disturbing.
              • 4. Re: OT - Feedback
                Level 7
                First URL: page takes forever to load on high speed connection. Reason,
                images are way too big and must be optimized for the web. One image,
                collage.png is 700x350 and 252kb. This is huge.

                I ran your dvdflashbacks url through this web page analyzer.
                http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/

                Connection - Download Time:
                56K - 437.49 seconds
                ISDN 128K - 138.98 seconds
                T1 1.44Mbps - 18.64 seconds

                Your pages shouldn't take more than 60 seconds to load for dial-up.

                --Nancy O.
                Alt-Web Design & Publishing
                www.alt-web.com




                "destind4film" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                news:fa1vak$3jf$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                > I had tried posting this in a different thread, but it vanished...not sure
                why.
                > I don't think this is a violation of the TOU.
                >
                > So I was hoping to get some good feedback on some of my previous work and
                > current sites. I am working on redesigning my first three sites and a
                second
                > set of eyes is always helpful. Some of these are not 100% complete cause
                my
                > friends and/or family are dragging their feet with getting me the missing
                > content.
                >
                > http://www.dvdflashbacks.com/
                > *** This was my first web site, redesign is in the works
                >
                > http://www.fotoflashbacks.com/
                > *** Spin off site just a palette swap really, I liked my first use of
                flash on
                > the mosaic page though.
                >
                > http://www.webflashbacks.com/
                > *** Don't know what to say...this is just a placeholder page at this
                point
                >
                > http://www.fccexams.com/
                > *** This site keeps evolving cause my friend is a coder and won't stop
                > monkeying with my original design...oh well.
                >
                > http://www.blueoceancommercial.com
                >
                > http://www.dvdflashbacks.com/williamsburghealth/
                > *** i am most proud of this one, I think it is a major improvement over
                my
                > brother's original design
                >
                >
                > Thanks in advance for taking the time to check out my works in progress!
                >
                >


                • 5. Re: OT - Feedback
                  bregent Most Valuable Participant
                  >the first three make my eyes bleed.... there's so much going on that it's really hard to look at.
                  >i closed the window almost immediately.

                  Actually, I think the first one is the best. You're right, it is very busy, but the choice of colors is not too taxing. The rest all cause eye strain due to poor choice of colors and contrasts.
                  • 6. Re: OT - Feedback
                    destind4film Level 1
                    hi joeq,

                    Thanks for the followup.

                    Though it is not a "random or unrelated attack" as you put it...I would think that saying a site causes ones "eyes to bleed" doesn't sound very constructive...I think it sounds more sarcastic as opposed to productive. But that may be just me.

                    In the past, my friends and I reserved the phrase "makes my eyes bleed" for complete train wrecks such as the movie Battlefield Earth or sites like these:

                    http://www.dokimos.org/ajff/

                    http://www.hrodc.com/

                    I know I am not as experienced or accomplished as a Senior Member such as yourself, and I have not always hit the mark with all of the web design standards...but I definitely do not feel that my sites are even close to the poor implementations as those sites.

                    Your follow up was far more constructive since you explained that the sites were "too busy." So I appreciate that very much, because it gives me an indication of what is wrong with my current layout and will surely help me as I move forward with my redesigns of the first three sites.

                    I would also ask if you could please elaborate on what you mean by visually disturbing? Are the images poor in quality or design? Are the colors in contrast with the overall themes of each site? Are the images offensive?

                    Also was it all of my site examples that you found were too busy or just the first, second, or third? (The third one is not even much of a site yet so I am not sure how it could be very busy.)

                    Thanks again for your insight and for your time.
                    • 7. Re: OT - Feedback
                      destind4film Level 1
                      Nancy O,

                      Thanks for the info on that. That is actually one of the main reasons for my redesigns of these. I actually have gotten some of these images down to 30k and below now for use on the next version of these.

                      Thanks also for that analyzer link! This looks like a great tool!
                      • 8. Re: OT - Feedback
                        joeq Level 1
                        for starters, all the type is too big... and the headlines with the drop shadows are hard to read. i would also suggest simplifying the navigation elements.
                        • 9. Re: OT - Feedback
                          destind4film Level 1
                          joeq,

                          Are you referring to the headline in red? Or the grey gradient ones? If it is the red header image you are referring too, then I see what you mean. I actually tried both with a shadow and without. Moving forward I will definitely remove the shadow...that should also help shrink the filesize.

                          As for text size...I can't remember what font size I used...but I think the font size in the other sites is smaller and more standard...maybe 11px. Or are you saying the font size is too large in all six sites?

                          Thanks again.
                          • 10. Re: OT - Feedback
                            Level 7
                            10 seconds is the target pushed by Nielsen, et. al. In today's world,
                            though, I think you can relax that target a bit.

                            --
                            Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                            Adobe Community Expert
                            (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                            ==================
                            http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                            http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                            http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                            http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                            ==================


                            "Nancy O" <nancyoshea1@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
                            news:fa21ul$6dj$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                            > First URL: page takes forever to load on high speed connection. Reason,
                            > images are way too big and must be optimized for the web. One image,
                            > collage.png is 700x350 and 252kb. This is huge.
                            >
                            > I ran your dvdflashbacks url through this web page analyzer.
                            > http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/
                            >
                            > Connection - Download Time:
                            > 56K - 437.49 seconds
                            > ISDN 128K - 138.98 seconds
                            > T1 1.44Mbps - 18.64 seconds
                            >
                            > Your pages shouldn't take more than 60 seconds to load for dial-up.
                            >
                            > --Nancy O.
                            > Alt-Web Design & Publishing
                            > www.alt-web.com
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > "destind4film" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                            > news:fa1vak$3jf$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                            >> I had tried posting this in a different thread, but it vanished...not
                            >> sure
                            > why.
                            >> I don't think this is a violation of the TOU.
                            >>
                            >> So I was hoping to get some good feedback on some of my previous work
                            >> and
                            >> current sites. I am working on redesigning my first three sites and a
                            > second
                            >> set of eyes is always helpful. Some of these are not 100% complete cause
                            > my
                            >> friends and/or family are dragging their feet with getting me the missing
                            >> content.
                            >>
                            >> http://www.dvdflashbacks.com/
                            >> *** This was my first web site, redesign is in the works
                            >>
                            >> http://www.fotoflashbacks.com/
                            >> *** Spin off site just a palette swap really, I liked my first use of
                            > flash on
                            >> the mosaic page though.
                            >>
                            >> http://www.webflashbacks.com/
                            >> *** Don't know what to say...this is just a placeholder page at this
                            > point
                            >>
                            >> http://www.fccexams.com/
                            >> *** This site keeps evolving cause my friend is a coder and won't stop
                            >> monkeying with my original design...oh well.
                            >>
                            >> http://www.blueoceancommercial.com
                            >>
                            >> http://www.dvdflashbacks.com/williamsburghealth/
                            >> *** i am most proud of this one, I think it is a major improvement over
                            > my
                            >> brother's original design
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> Thanks in advance for taking the time to check out my works in progress!
                            >>
                            >>
                            >
                            >


                            • 11. Re: OT - Feedback
                              destind4film Level 1
                              hi bregent,

                              Was it all sites from my examples that had poor color choices and bad contrast?

                              This would be very surprising to me since the last site example listed ( http://www.dvdflashbacks.com/williamsburghealth ) has hardly any colors what so ever and the subtle gradients being used on the navigation is part of the standard blue shading from PVII Accordion Panel Magics theme.

                              Thank you.
                              • 12. Re: OT - Feedback
                                joeq Level 1
                                all the headlines, all the body copy.

                                quote:

                                Originally posted by: destind4film
                                joeq,

                                Are you referring to the headline in red? Or the grey gradient ones? If it is the red header image you are referring too, then I see what you mean. I actually tried both with a shadow and without. Moving forward I will definitely remove the shadow...that should also help shrink the filesize.

                                As for text size...I can't remember what font size I used...but I think the font size in the other sites is smaller and more standard...maybe 11px. Or are you saying the font size is too large in all six sites?

                                Thanks again.


                                • 13. Re: OT - Feedback
                                  joeq Level 1
                                  and go easy on the italics.
                                  • 14. Re: OT - Feedback
                                    DaphneStarr Level 1
                                    Hi, I just took a look at your the homepage of your first site (dvdflashbacks.com) and I don't think it's bad at all. Although, I do think the red text clashes with the pastel colors on the page, but that's just personal preference. But overall, I think it's cute and upbeat - especially if your targeting families with little kids. But if your looking to attract a different type of audience, then maybe you might want to consider a sleeker layout with a more neutral color scheme. But again, that's just personal preference :)

                                    On a technical note, I noticed that, in the text of the home page, the apostrophes appear as ’ - be sure to use the character code for them which is &#39;

                                    A great place to get site reviews is the cre8asite forum. Check out their website hospital at http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?showforum=4
                                    You'll get some really good, friendly, constructive criticism there. But just be sure to read the "Tips on Getting a Better Website Review" section before you submit a request.

                                    Best wishes,
                                    Lorinda
                                    • 15. OT - Feedback
                                      destind4film Level 1
                                      Lorinda,

                                      Thanks. Yes the idea for the first couple of sites was to target a family oriented audience, since it is a photomontage/video editing service geared towards weddings and family parties. I hope to have my redesign done this weekend though, hence the request for feedback. My new design is actually going to be more sleek and polished but I am trying to retain the color scheme and figure out what works and doesn't in the existing ones.

                                      As for the ’ in the text...I need to contact my host and ask them what happened. I had made a change using their live cpanel html editor yesterday and that was a unrelated biproduct, so something is wrong with their editor since this was not a problem in DW.

                                      Thanks also for the link. Good, friendly, constructive criticism is always nice so I will check them out.
                                      • 16. Re: OT - Feedback
                                        destind4film Level 1
                                        Hi Murray,


                                        10 seconds?! On dialup or broadband? That would be slim.

                                        I often wondered how some sites - like Apple's new site - are able to pull off such great graphics and especially flash usage and keep their loading times so quick.

                                        I know I am not an expert yet on image optimization, but I know the basics with using Photoshop's Save for web and adjusting the quality settings. My original problem with the images on my original site was that I didn't realize that I had not been using the "merge visible" on the layers beforehand. I noticed that once I merged visible layers the resulting .pngs were way smaller.
                                        • 17. Re: OT - Feedback
                                          Level 7
                                          One way to keep file size down is to use very tiny background image segments
                                          and repeat them horizontally, vertically or both. Or use background colors
                                          instead of images.
                                          http://alt-web.com/Backgrounds.shtml

                                          When you optimize images for the web, you want to use the smallest image
                                          possible for the job required. Gifs & Jpgs often compress down better than
                                          Png. PNG-24 can make a 1k image into a 20k image. Total images on home
                                          pages shouldn't exceed about 30k, so select output wisely.


                                          --Nancy O.
                                          Alt-Web Design & Publishing
                                          www.alt-web.com



                                          "destind4film" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                          news:fa28ra$ec3$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                          > Hi Murray,
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > 10 seconds?! On dialup or broadband? That would be slim.
                                          >
                                          > I often wondered how some sites - like Apple's new site - are able to
                                          pull off
                                          > such great graphics and especially flash usage and keep their loading
                                          times so
                                          > quick.
                                          >
                                          > I know I am not an expert yet on image optimization, but I know the
                                          basics
                                          > with using Photoshop's Save for web and adjusting the quality settings.
                                          My
                                          > original problem with the images on my original site was that I didn't
                                          realize
                                          > that I had not been using the "merge visible" on the layers beforehand. I
                                          > noticed that once I merged visible layers the resulting .pngs were way
                                          smaller.
                                          >


                                          • 18. Re: OT - Feedback
                                            Level 7
                                            .oO(Nancy O)

                                            >When you optimize images for the web, you want to use the smallest image
                                            >possible for the job required. Gifs & Jpgs often compress down better than
                                            >Png.

                                            Depends. Of course if you store a photograph as PNG it will be much
                                            larger than a JPEG, that's no surprise. But then PNG was just an
                                            inapproprate choice for that kind of image.

                                            >PNG-24 can make a 1k image into a 20k image.

                                            There can also be cases where a JPEG will be bigger than a PNG. It
                                            always depends on the image itself.

                                            And who really uses GIF anymore? Except maybe for animations PNG is by
                                            far the superior format: more colors, more features, better compression.

                                            Just my 2 cents.

                                            Micha
                                            • 19. Re: OT - Feedback
                                              Level 7
                                              Yep. 10 seconds for the appearance of "engaging content". That number is
                                              given as the amount of time elapsed before the 'click-through' rate begins
                                              to increase measurably, i.e., before people begin to leave and go to the
                                              next hit on their search list. This really only applies to the first page
                                              to be loaded - images and other externally linked files will then be cached.
                                              This number is quite old, though, although I don't think it's related to
                                              anything other than how impatient people are to get the information that
                                              they seek....

                                              --
                                              Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                                              Adobe Community Expert
                                              (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                                              ==================
                                              http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                                              http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                              http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                              http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                                              ==================


                                              "destind4film" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                              news:fa28ra$ec3$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                              > Hi Murray,
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > 10 seconds?! On dialup or broadband? That would be slim.
                                              >
                                              > I often wondered how some sites - like Apple's new site - are able to pull
                                              > off
                                              > such great graphics and especially flash usage and keep their loading
                                              > times so
                                              > quick.
                                              >
                                              > I know I am not an expert yet on image optimization, but I know the basics
                                              > with using Photoshop's Save for web and adjusting the quality settings.
                                              > My
                                              > original problem with the images on my original site was that I didn't
                                              > realize
                                              > that I had not been using the "merge visible" on the layers beforehand. I
                                              > noticed that once I merged visible layers the resulting .pngs were way
                                              > smaller.
                                              >


                                              • 20. Re: OT - Feedback
                                                destind4film Level 1
                                                Thank you again for the tip. I often see the use of shadows and reflections on the web. Whenever I try to reproduce these type of effects and use gif's they just end up looking grainy to me. But of course using only png makes the site look wrong in older browers such as ie6.

                                                quote:

                                                Originally posted by: Newsgroup User
                                                One way to keep file size down is to use very tiny background image segments
                                                and repeat them horizontally, vertically or both. Or use background colors
                                                instead of images.
                                                http://alt-web.com/Backgrounds.shtml

                                                When you optimize images for the web, you want to use the smallest image
                                                possible for the job required. Gifs & Jpgs often compress down better than
                                                Png. PNG-24 can make a 1k image into a 20k image. Total images on home
                                                pages shouldn't exceed about 30k, so select output wisely.


                                                --Nancy O.
                                                Alt-Web Design & Publishing
                                                www.alt-web.com



                                                "destind4film" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                                news:fa28ra$ec3$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                                > Hi Murray,
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > 10 seconds?! On dialup or broadband? That would be slim.
                                                >
                                                > I often wondered how some sites - like Apple's new site - are able to
                                                pull off
                                                > such great graphics and especially flash usage and keep their loading
                                                times so
                                                > quick.
                                                >
                                                > I know I am not an expert yet on image optimization, but I know the
                                                basics
                                                > with using Photoshop's Save for web and adjusting the quality settings.
                                                My
                                                > original problem with the images on my original site was that I didn't
                                                realize
                                                > that I had not been using the "merge visible" on the layers beforehand. I
                                                > noticed that once I merged visible layers the resulting .pngs were way
                                                smaller.
                                                >





                                                • 21. Re: OT - Feedback
                                                  Level 7
                                                  Agreed. But honestly, Photoshop PNG compression is poor. So my rule of
                                                  thumb is to look at which file type yields acceptable results with the least
                                                  amount of baggage - be it jpg, gif or png.


                                                  --Nancy O.
                                                  Alt-Web Design & Publishing
                                                  www.alt-web.com



                                                  "Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
                                                  news:77d9c3t125g4o3160bgj0j6d0ldbt9281v@4ax.com...
                                                  > .oO(Nancy O)
                                                  >
                                                  > >When you optimize images for the web, you want to use the smallest image
                                                  > >possible for the job required. Gifs & Jpgs often compress down better
                                                  than
                                                  > >Png.
                                                  >
                                                  > Depends. Of course if you store a photograph as PNG it will be much
                                                  > larger than a JPEG, that's no surprise. But then PNG was just an
                                                  > inapproprate choice for that kind of image.
                                                  >
                                                  > >PNG-24 can make a 1k image into a 20k image.
                                                  >
                                                  > There can also be cases where a JPEG will be bigger than a PNG. It
                                                  > always depends on the image itself.
                                                  >
                                                  > And who really uses GIF anymore? Except maybe for animations PNG is by
                                                  > far the superior format: more colors, more features, better compression.
                                                  >
                                                  > Just my 2 cents.
                                                  >
                                                  > Micha


                                                  • 22. Re: OT - Feedback
                                                    Level 7
                                                    FW PNG compression is excellent.

                                                    --
                                                    Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                                                    Adobe Community Expert
                                                    (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                                                    ==================
                                                    http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                                                    http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                                    http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                                    http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                                                    ==================


                                                    "Nancy O" <nancyoshea1@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
                                                    news:fa2e9k$kd7$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                                    > Agreed. But honestly, Photoshop PNG compression is poor. So my rule of
                                                    > thumb is to look at which file type yields acceptable results with the
                                                    > least
                                                    > amount of baggage - be it jpg, gif or png.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > --Nancy O.
                                                    > Alt-Web Design & Publishing
                                                    > www.alt-web.com
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > "Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
                                                    > news:77d9c3t125g4o3160bgj0j6d0ldbt9281v@4ax.com...
                                                    >> .oO(Nancy O)
                                                    >>
                                                    >> >When you optimize images for the web, you want to use the smallest image
                                                    >> >possible for the job required. Gifs & Jpgs often compress down better
                                                    > than
                                                    >> >Png.
                                                    >>
                                                    >> Depends. Of course if you store a photograph as PNG it will be much
                                                    >> larger than a JPEG, that's no surprise. But then PNG was just an
                                                    >> inapproprate choice for that kind of image.
                                                    >>
                                                    >> >PNG-24 can make a 1k image into a 20k image.
                                                    >>
                                                    >> There can also be cases where a JPEG will be bigger than a PNG. It
                                                    >> always depends on the image itself.
                                                    >>
                                                    >> And who really uses GIF anymore? Except maybe for animations PNG is by
                                                    >> far the superior format: more colors, more features, better compression.
                                                    >>
                                                    >> Just my 2 cents.
                                                    >>
                                                    >> Micha
                                                    >
                                                    >


                                                    • 23. Re: OT - Feedback
                                                      Level 7
                                                      > Whenever I try to reproduce these type of effects and use gif's they
                                                      > just end up looking grainy to me.

                                                      Sure - that's what happens when you try to reduce a > 1,000,000 color
                                                      palette to only 256 colors (GIF).

                                                      --
                                                      Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                                                      Adobe Community Expert
                                                      (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                                                      ==================
                                                      http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                                                      http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                                      http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                                      http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                                                      ==================


                                                      "destind4film" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                                      news:fa2dcb$jhp$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                                      > Thank you again for the tip. I often see the use of shadows and
                                                      > reflections on
                                                      > the web. But of course using only png makes the site
                                                      > look wrong in older browers such as ie6.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      quote:

                                                      Originally posted by: Newsgroup User
                                                      > One way to keep file size down is to use very tiny background image
                                                      > segments
                                                      > and repeat them horizontally, vertically or both. Or use background
                                                      > colors
                                                      > instead of images.
                                                      > http://alt-web.com/Backgrounds.shtml
                                                      >
                                                      > When you optimize images for the web, you want to use the smallest image
                                                      > possible for the job required. Gifs & Jpgs often compress down better than
                                                      > Png. PNG-24 can make a 1k image into a 20k image. Total images on home
                                                      > pages shouldn't exceed about 30k, so select output wisely.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > --Nancy O.
                                                      > Alt-Web Design & Publishing
                                                      > www.alt-web.com
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > "destind4film" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                                      > news:fa28ra$ec3$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                                      > > Hi Murray,
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > 10 seconds?! On dialup or broadband? That would be slim.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I often wondered how some sites - like Apple's new site - are able to
                                                      > pull off
                                                      > > such great graphics and especially flash usage and keep their loading
                                                      > times so
                                                      > > quick.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I know I am not an expert yet on image optimization, but I know the
                                                      > basics
                                                      > > with using Photoshop's Save for web and adjusting the quality settings.
                                                      > My
                                                      > > original problem with the images on my original site was that I didn't
                                                      > realize
                                                      > > that I had not been using the "merge visible" on the layers beforehand.
                                                      > > I
                                                      > > noticed that once I merged visible layers the resulting .pngs were way
                                                      > smaller.
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >

                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >


                                                      • 24. Re: OT - Feedback
                                                        Level 7
                                                        IE6 doesn't support transparent PNG. But there's a PNG fix javascript to
                                                        force feed transparent PNG rendering here:
                                                        http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/pnghowto.htm

                                                        ...but it doesn't work for BG images.

                                                        Opaque PNG is fine in IE6.

                                                        You're right, Gif is good for text but awful on gradients and photos. PNG
                                                        is good to text & gradients and Jpeg is good for photos.

                                                        --Nancy


                                                        "destind4film" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                                        news:fa2dcb$jhp$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                                        > Thank you again for the tip. I often see the use of shadows and
                                                        reflections on
                                                        > the web. Whenever I try to reproduce these type of effects and use gif's
                                                        they
                                                        > just end up looking grainy to me. But of course using only png makes the
                                                        site
                                                        > look wrong in older browers such as ie6.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        quote:

                                                        Originally posted by: Newsgroup User
                                                        > One way to keep file size down is to use very tiny background image
                                                        segments
                                                        > and repeat them horizontally, vertically or both. Or use background
                                                        colors
                                                        > instead of images.
                                                        > http://alt-web.com/Backgrounds.shtml
                                                        >
                                                        > When you optimize images for the web, you want to use the smallest image
                                                        > possible for the job required. Gifs & Jpgs often compress down better
                                                        than
                                                        > Png. PNG-24 can make a 1k image into a 20k image. Total images on home
                                                        > pages shouldn't exceed about 30k, so select output wisely.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > --Nancy O.
                                                        > Alt-Web Design & Publishing
                                                        > www.alt-web.com
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > "destind4film" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                                                        > news:fa28ra$ec3$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                                        > > Hi Murray,
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > 10 seconds?! On dialup or broadband? That would be slim.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I often wondered how some sites - like Apple's new site - are able to
                                                        > pull off
                                                        > > such great graphics and especially flash usage and keep their loading
                                                        > times so
                                                        > > quick.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I know I am not an expert yet on image optimization, but I know the
                                                        > basics
                                                        > > with using Photoshop's Save for web and adjusting the quality settings.
                                                        > My
                                                        > > original problem with the images on my original site was that I didn't
                                                        > realize
                                                        > > that I had not been using the "merge visible" on the layers beforehand.
                                                        I
                                                        > > noticed that once I merged visible layers the resulting .pngs were way
                                                        > smaller.
                                                        > >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >

                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >


                                                        • 25. Re: OT - Feedback
                                                          Level 7
                                                          Yeah, I know. And it's on my list for that reason alone. I'm a PS person.

                                                          --N

                                                          "Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
                                                          news:fa2f3h$lci$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                                          > FW PNG compression is excellent.
                                                          >
                                                          > --
                                                          > Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                                                          > Adobe Community Expert
                                                          > (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                                                          > ==================
                                                          > http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                                                          > http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                                          > http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                                          > http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                                                          > ==================
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > "Nancy O" <nancyoshea1@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
                                                          > news:fa2e9k$kd7$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                                          > > Agreed. But honestly, Photoshop PNG compression is poor. So my rule of
                                                          > > thumb is to look at which file type yields acceptable results with the
                                                          > > least
                                                          > > amount of baggage - be it jpg, gif or png.
                                                          > >
                                                          > >
                                                          > > --Nancy O.
                                                          > > Alt-Web Design & Publishing
                                                          > > www.alt-web.com
                                                          > >
                                                          > >
                                                          > >
                                                          > > "Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
                                                          > > news:77d9c3t125g4o3160bgj0j6d0ldbt9281v@4ax.com...
                                                          > >> .oO(Nancy O)
                                                          > >>
                                                          > >> >When you optimize images for the web, you want to use the smallest
                                                          image
                                                          > >> >possible for the job required. Gifs & Jpgs often compress down better
                                                          > > than
                                                          > >> >Png.
                                                          > >>
                                                          > >> Depends. Of course if you store a photograph as PNG it will be much
                                                          > >> larger than a JPEG, that's no surprise. But then PNG was just an
                                                          > >> inapproprate choice for that kind of image.
                                                          > >>
                                                          > >> >PNG-24 can make a 1k image into a 20k image.
                                                          > >>
                                                          > >> There can also be cases where a JPEG will be bigger than a PNG. It
                                                          > >> always depends on the image itself.
                                                          > >>
                                                          > >> And who really uses GIF anymore? Except maybe for animations PNG is by
                                                          > >> far the superior format: more colors, more features, better
                                                          compression.
                                                          > >>
                                                          > >> Just my 2 cents.
                                                          > >>
                                                          > >> Micha
                                                          > >
                                                          > >
                                                          >
                                                          >


                                                          • 26. Re: OT - Feedback
                                                            destind4film Level 1
                                                            I guess I am too used to working in PS. But I will give FW a try. Does FW handle .psd files with multiple layers pretty well?

                                                            Any steps I can take to make my sites look and function better are a plus!

                                                            Thanks.

                                                            quote:

                                                            Originally posted by: Newsgroup User
                                                            FW PNG compression is excellent.

                                                            --
                                                            Murray --- ICQ 71997575
                                                            Adobe Community Expert
                                                            (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
                                                            ==================
                                                            http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
                                                            http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                                            http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
                                                            http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
                                                            ==================


                                                            "Nancy O" <nancyoshea1@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
                                                            news:fa2e9k$kd7$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                                                            > Agreed. But honestly, Photoshop PNG compression is poor. So my rule of
                                                            > thumb is to look at which file type yields acceptable results with the
                                                            > least
                                                            > amount of baggage - be it jpg, gif or png.
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > --Nancy O.
                                                            > Alt-Web Design & Publishing
                                                            > www.alt-web.com
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > "Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
                                                            > news:77d9c3t125g4o3160bgj0j6d0ldbt9281v@4ax.com...
                                                            >> .oO(Nancy O)
                                                            >>
                                                            >> >When you optimize images for the web, you want to use the smallest image
                                                            >> >possible for the job required. Gifs & Jpgs often compress down better
                                                            > than
                                                            >> >Png.
                                                            >>
                                                            >> Depends. Of course if you store a photograph as PNG it will be much
                                                            >> larger than a JPEG, that's no surprise. But then PNG was just an
                                                            >> inapproprate choice for that kind of image.
                                                            >>
                                                            >> >PNG-24 can make a 1k image into a 20k image.
                                                            >>
                                                            >> There can also be cases where a JPEG will be bigger than a PNG. It
                                                            >> always depends on the image itself.
                                                            >>
                                                            >> And who really uses GIF anymore? Except maybe for animations PNG is by
                                                            >> far the superior format: more colors, more features, better compression.
                                                            >>
                                                            >> Just my 2 cents.
                                                            >>
                                                            >> Micha
                                                            >
                                                            >