Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote
>
>> Has anybody conducted studies on how heavy sites compete with
> lightweight
>> ones?
>
> No study, but Google's leanness, for me, was it's winning factor over
> the existing search engines.
I wonder if that's the reason why they took down Mac OS X-themed Google
after just a single day. Since Google try hard "not to become evil", they
have always had not to discriminate modem users. If you want a heavy (and
powerful) front-end to Google, use A9.com, which by the way is lovely.
>> Some broadband users find minimalist pages disappointing and given
>> the perpetual rise in broadband use, can one assume that rich sites
> have
>> better prospects?
>
> How does a broadband user find a minimalist page disappointing? If it's
> a Google result, or a line of code, then I couldn't be happier with it.
How about a site with no graphics which help a verbal explanation, for
example?
> The last thing I would do, is make weight or richness for the sake of
> it. What is key, is providing this *if necessary*, pictures of a
> product for example.
>
> Maybe when 90+% of people are on broadband, we can relax a bit over
> this. But that won't be for some time, if ever. Then there's the
> mobile users on laptops, PDAs, to think about. Most mobile phone modems
> are still very slow.
That's true. That's where Web standards and in particular alternative
stylesheets help.
> In any event, a light page will always be quicker than a heavy one!
> I've been on broadband for a while, but it's very rare to find pages
> that load virtually instantly.
It's a trade-off, as ever. What I struggle to do is find the point of
/balance/.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
