 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / August 2008Splip-Splop-Splap == Browser Presentation
Yes, I've harped on this before.... To me something exceedingly annoying is that when I opt to go to a website page Safari (or any other browser with which I am familiar) starts displaying the various items of the page as they become available, the result being that the page appears piece-by-piece, an effect I've dubbed "splip-splop-splap". Would it be so hard for the browser to give me an option to not display the page until the download is complete so that it would appear all at the same time? After all, in Safari (and again I assume any other browser) I have a progress indicator showing me that the download is in progress. Even nicer would be having the option of having a fade-out/fade-in transition. I've sent my grumplet as a feature request to Apple. If others feel as I do I would appreciate their letting Apple know.  SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com > Yes, I've harped on this before.... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I've sent my grumplet as a feature request to Apple. If others feel as I do I > would appreciate their letting Apple know. The only problem is the browser can't know when all page elements are downloaded. Page elements may have no knowledge of the other pieces on the page. Adopting your idea could lead to a blank screen. > Would it be so hard for the browser to give me an option to not display the > page until the download is complete so that it would appear all at the same > time? Yes. > I've sent my grumplet as a feature request to Apple. If others feel as I do I > would appreciate their letting Apple know. Not really. If the button I need to click is the first thing to download, I don't want to have to wait another 10 seconds before I'm even allowed to see it. > > Would it be so hard for the browser to give me an option to not display the > > page until the download is complete so that it would appear all at the same [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't want to have to wait another 10 seconds before I'm even allowed to > see it. Ten secods? Heck, sometimes forever. I *VERY* often am reading some of the material on a page while the rest downloads. For example, there are lots of "pages" that are hundres or even thousands of lines long of material to scroll through. It isn't particularly rare for me to abort a download before the complete page is even finished. Sometimes it is hung up on one part for some reason, and sometimes that part is something I don't care about anyway; or maybe I do care, but decided to give up on it. Other times, I've just read enough. I would find a "feature" of not displaying a page until it was finished to be *VERY* annoying, enough so that it alone would probably be grounds for refusing to use a browser. I seriously doubt I would be alone. Admitedly, you asked for it to be an option, which would take it out of the category of reasons to veto a browser, since I could choose to not use that feature. But it would be so annoying that if it defaulted to "on", I' could imagine abandoning the browser before I managed to figure out that there was an option to disable the feature. And I still suspect it would be an unpopular and rarely used option. SignatureRichard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain > > > Would it be so hard for the browser to give me an option to not display > > > the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > don't care about anyway; or maybe I do care, but decided to give up on > it. Other times, I've just read enough. Often it's ads that take the longest to load. You'll find if you use a browser like Firefox, that supports robust ad blocking that prevents ads from loading (as opposed to loading them and then filtering them out), like AdBlock Plus, pages will load much faster. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR > > Ten secods? Heck, sometimes forever. I *VERY* often am reading some of > > the material on a page while the rest downloads. For example, there are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Often it's ads that take the longest to load. It's been my experience that usually the ads show up first. :-( SignatureFound Poetry (_Science News_, 14-Jun-2003): oldest _homo sapiens_ find +-----------------------------------------+ ocean eddies' far-flung effects; | Kevin Michael Vail <kevin@vaildc.net> | superior threads spun +-----------------------------------------+ the pox from prairie dogs. > > > Ten secods? Heck, sometimes forever. I *VERY* often am reading some of > > > the material on a page while the rest downloads. For example, there are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's been my experience that usually the ads show up first. :-( You may be *seeing* some ads display first; but the fact remains: often some ad servers are hideously slow. As a result, some of the slowest connections on most web pages with ads are connections with ad servers. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR > > > Ten secods? Heck, sometimes forever. I *VERY* often am reading some of > > > the material on a page while the rest downloads. For example, there are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's been my experience that usually the ads show up first. :-( If you dislike seeing or loading ads, use a web browser that prevents them from even being downloaded in the first place (Firefox + AdBlock Plus is an excellent solution in this case). SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR > Often it's ads that take the longest to load. > > You'll find if you use a browser like Firefox, that supports robust ad > blocking that prevents ads from loading (as opposed to loading them and > then filtering them out), like AdBlock Plus, pages will load much faster. I do use FireFox, and AdBlock Plus is about 90% of the reason. That does help with a lot. SignatureRichard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain > Not really. If the button I need to click is the first thing to > download, I don't want to have to wait another 10 seconds before I'm > even allowed to see it. Note that what I asked for was an optional feature, not required behavior, a feature that can be selectively enabled or disabled at the user's choice. As an aside, rarely do I have to wait more than about two seconds for a page to complete, but even then the piece-by-piece appearance of the elements of the page I find quite distracting. Perhaps I'm just one who places great importance upon visual presentation. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com > > Not really. If the button I need to click is the first thing to > > download, I don't want to have to wait another 10 seconds before I'm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > page I find quite distracting. Perhaps I'm just one who places great > importance upon visual presentation. I doubt Apple gives that much control over Safari. Firefox, on the other hand, allows you to configure a bunch of options that effect how pages load. Here are some of the (I'm sure there are others as well): <http://forevergeek.com/open_source/make_firefox_faster.php> SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR >> Not really. If the button I need to click is the first thing to >> download, I don't want to have to wait another 10 seconds before I'm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > page I find quite distracting. Perhaps I'm just one who places great > importance upon visual presentation. How long does it take to display the following page? http://www.aol.com/main.adp It displays quickly for me... one blink and it is done. In Safari, Show status bar in View menu, then Reload Page a couple of times. Note the Olympic Gold medal at upper left is timed. I doubt you would like to wait until that item is done. Pictures on the page are updated without refreshing the whole page. You might need a faster Internet connection or computer. > How long does it take to display the following page? > > http://www.aol.com/main.adp > > It displays quickly for me... one blink and it is done. Well over 90 seconds for me before I gave up waiting, although some text content begins to appear after 20 seconds. The ads were the last thing to load. This is the normal web browsing experience for those of us in deep rural areas. Fastest available connection is 1.5M down 256K up via satellite, and mine's only a 1M connection. One-minute-plus page loads are the norm around here. I always have to chuckle when I read someone's sad story of how their 10M connection seems to fluctuate down to 8M for no reason ;( SignatureBream Rockmetteller Donaldson's Dog Joy 509-450-0301 > > How long does it take to display the following page? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I always have to chuckle when I read someone's sad story of how their > 10M connection seems to fluctuate down to 8M for no reason ;( It took under 2 seconds to load here, with Firefox & AdBlock Plus on my broadband connection. If your connection is that slow, it seems you'd benefit that much more from AdBlock Plus and Firefox. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR >>> How long does it take to display the following page? >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It took under 2 seconds to load here, with Firefox & AdBlock Plus on my > broadband connection. I have a stopwatch on my wrist. I clicked the URL, then reached for the watch and before my right hand could go from the trackball to my left wrist the page was loaded. So I don't know how long it took. > If your connection is that slow, it seems you'd benefit that much more > from AdBlock Plus and Firefox. 5 MBPS Verizon FiOS, Firefox 3, AdBlock Plus. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. > >>> How long does it take to display the following page? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > 5 MBPS Verizon FiOS, Firefox 3, AdBlock Plus. Nice! I'm still waiting for Verison to roll out FiOS here. Until then, I'm making due with 6400 kbps down / 450 kbps up cable connection - I hate these slow uplink speeds! SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR >>>> How long does it take to display the following page? >>>> >>>> http://www.aol.com/main.adp > 5 MBPS Verizon FiOS, Firefox 3, AdBlock Plus. I've got the same set up. It took under two seconds. I didn't explicitly clear my cache beforehand, but I'm confident that nothing there had been in my browser cache. -j SignatureJeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/ > >>>> How long does it take to display the following page? > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > explicitly clear my cache beforehand, but I'm confident that nothing > there had been in my browser cache. Well, I dunno, I have none of these fancy things, just the browsers and the site loads quicker than one can say "ADSL2 is pretty good in inner Sydney" Signaturedorayme > > >>>> How long does it take to display the following page? > > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the site loads quicker than one can say "ADSL2 is pretty good in inner > Sydney" I'm not sure I understand why you would run Firefox without AdBlock Plus; but ok. : ) SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR > > > >>>> How long does it take to display the following page? > > > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm not sure I understand why you would run Firefox without AdBlock > Plus; but ok. : ) I only use FF and other browsers to test sites on rather than browse. And I don't much browse (especially not the sort of sites likely to have ads and stuff), never seem to have time. Signaturedorayme >>> >>>> How long does it take to display the following page? >>> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm not sure I understand why you would run Firefox without AdBlock > Plus; but ok. : ) I agree, JR. If you're not just like me, well, ok. > > How long does it take to display the following page? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > text content begins to appear after 20 seconds. The ads were the last > thing to load. About 10 seconds total here, ads last to finish. > How long does it take to display the following page? > > http://www.aol.com/main.adp > > It displays quickly for me... one blink and it is done. Yup. One blink is all you need for that page. <http://www.reuters.com/> loads fast and is actually worth reading. SignatureW. Oates > > How long does it take to display the following page? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > loads fast and is actually worth reading. Over 23 seconds! Plus it is full of convoluted crap that pushes Safari so that CPU use goes down 15% when you close that single page. I loath Reuters pages, and won't link to them. Signaturehttp://www.ericlindsay.com > In article <007030a9$0$26615$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates > <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that CPU use goes down 15% when you close that single page. I loath > Reuters pages, and won't link to them. For me the Reuters page took 4 seconds to download. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com > For me the Reuters page took 4 seconds to download. For me it loads in the twinkling of an eye. I never thought about having to "wait" for it. SignatureW. Oates > > For me the Reuters page took 4 seconds to download. > > For me it loads in the twinkling of an eye. Do all eyes take the same time to twinkle? If not, the twinkling of whose eye? SignatureI kill Google Groups posts. See http://improve-usenet.org for details. <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude > > > For me the Reuters page took 4 seconds to download. > > > > For me it loads in the twinkling of an eye. > > Do all eyes take the same time to twinkle? If not, the twinkling of > whose eye? My goodness... Didn't your parents ever have "the talk" with you?? SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group rather than directly to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. You'll need to use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR >>> Not really. If the button I need to click is the first thing to >>> download, I don't want to have to wait another 10 seconds before I'm [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > You might need a faster Internet connection or computer. I know this might come as a shock to you, but there are some people still around who may not be able to afford a new computer just because the internet is slow, or upgrade their service, either for financial reasons, or because broadband service is not available where they live. Of course, in the latter case, they could just move to a big city to get better access! Silly me. > >>> Not really. If the button I need to click is the first thing to > >>> download, I don't want to have to wait another 10 seconds before I'm [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > in the latter case, they could just move to a big city to get better > access! Silly me. LOL... SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR > > How long does it take to display the following page? > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in the latter case, they could just move to a big city to get better > access! Silly me. That AOL page never stops loading. It is up to over 3 minutes now. The reason is that after taking about a minute to load its content, it continues to reload a file called pctrl.gif over and over again. And that is entirely apart from having a main page that weighs in at 563KB (Documents 108K, stylesheets 87K, images 230K, scripts 113K, and others 26K). Mind you, if you have blocked plug-ins, and turned Javascript off, you might get a better browsing experience over a dial up line. Signaturehttp://www.ericlindsay.com In <NOwebmasterSPAM-78BD5F.06421229082008@freenews.iinet.net.au>, Eric...: >>> http://www.aol.com/main.adp > That AOL page never stops loading. It is up to over 3 minutes now. The > reason is that after taking about a minute to load its content, it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Mind you, if you have blocked plug-ins, and turned Javascript off, you > might get a better browsing experience over a dial up line. It loads instantaneous for me when I tested. Though I suppose I should mention that I tested with links (installed via MacPorts). Cheers, -j SignatureJeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/ > Would it be so hard for the browser to give me an option to not display the > page until the download is complete so that it would appear all at the same > time? After all, in Safari (and again I assume any other browser) I have a > progress indicator showing me that the download is in progress. The problem seems to be caused by images. Would it be feasible for the browser to leave a space of the correct size for each image so at least the text is there, rather than having it jump around as you're trying to read it? > > Would it be so hard for the browser to give me an option to not display the > > page until the download is complete so that it would appear all at the same [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the text is there, rather than having it jump around as you're trying to > read it? Sure. Browsers already do this if the <img> tag has height and width attributes. The page author merely has to include the correct size of the image. This is why best practices are to always include the correct size of the image in the <img> tag -- if you don't, the text on the page will jump around as the browser loads each image. This has been standard browser behavior for some time and many pages include accurate height and width attributes for this reason. Of course, in some cases it is not possible to know in advance the size of the image you will be loading. SignatureJerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/> Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address. This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses. > > > Would it be so hard for the browser to give me an option to not display > > > the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > some cases it is not possible to know in advance the size of the image > you will be loading. Especially now-a-days, where more and more web pages load more and more of their content dynamically. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR >> Would it be so hard for the browser to give me an option to not display the >> page until the download is complete so that it would appear all at the same [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the text is there, rather than having it jump around as you're trying to > read it? Sure it could --- in fact it probably does. ... Provided the source of the page being displayed specifies the size of the picture. > Yes, I've harped on this before.... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Would it be so hard for the browser to give me an option to not display the > page until the download is complete... You have got an option that is almost as good: open in a tab and forget about it for a few minutes while you work in another tab. For those of us used to dialup practices, this is old hat. The trouble with you young modern things - TaliesinSoft - is that you have not done it tough enough in the past and worked out defensive strategies. <g> Signaturedorayme >> Yes, I've harped on this before.... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > modern things - TaliesinSoft - is that you have not done it tough enough > in the past and worked out defensive strategies. <g> Indeed! I'll have 3 or 4 tabs with swirly icons going while I'm waiting for whatever... My comment to the satellite installer: well, I guess it's better than dial-up. He definitely agreed. SignatureBream Rockmetteller Donaldson's Dog Joy 509-450-0301 > Yes, I've harped on this before.... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I've sent my grumplet as a feature request to Apple. If others feel as I do I > would appreciate their letting Apple know. I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. I'm like the others, if the button, pic or text that I want to see comes up early, I'm doing what I came to the site to do and moving on. The sooner the better. I don't want it to hold until the page is complete, especially if the thing that's taking so long to load is an ad, or even a pic I don't care about. [commenting on my opening posting in this thread where I posited that it would be nice to have a browser hold off the presentation of a site until all of the components were downloaded] > I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. I'm like the others, if the > button, pic or text that I want to see comes up early, I'm doing what I > came to the site to do and moving on. The sooner the better. I don't want > it to hold until the page is complete, especially if the thing that's > taking so long to load is an ad, or even a pic I don't care about. Something that seems to be continually overlooked is that what I asked for was an OPTIONAL feature. If you don't want to wait you don't have to. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com > [commenting on my opening posting in this thread where I posited that it > would be nice to have a browser hold off the presentation of a site until all [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Something that seems to be continually overlooked is that what I asked for > was an OPTIONAL feature. If you don't want to wait you don't have to. How would your browser KNOW when all components are downloaded? > How would your browser KNOW when all components are downloaded? The browser I normally use, Safari, has a progress indicator that indicates when the download of a page has completed. Upon the moment of indicated completion would seem a good time to reveal the contents of the page, if one has opted to postpone display until completion. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com >> How would your browser KNOW when all components are downloaded? > > The browser I normally use, Safari, has a progress indicator that indicates > when the download of a page has completed. Upon the moment of indicated > completion would seem a good time to reveal the contents of the page, if one > has opted to postpone display until completion. I have Safari available and notice the "progress number indicator" resets more than once as it is being updated. Watch the progress indicator as this page loads... http://www.montereyherald.com/local The numbers change as I watch them, but don't stay on the bottom bar very long. There are multiple load sets. Safari is the slowest browser on my 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac. > TaliesinSoft wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Safari is the slowest browser on my 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac. I just now checked the above URL with Safari and the progress indicator at the top of the window appeared to complete when all of the page completed its download. The numbers at the bottom did go through a series of changes. But it did seem that the progress indicator, when complete, did indeed indicate that the page download was finished. SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com > > How would your browser KNOW when all components are downloaded? > > The browser I normally use, Safari, has a progress indicator that indicates > when the download of a page has completed. Upon the moment of indicated > completion would seem a good time to reveal the contents of the page, if one > has opted to postpone display until completion. Command Option N in Safari will even show you how long each component of a web page takes to load, if you have enabled the Develop menu (via Preferences, Advanced). Now if only some of the people who wrote web pages would check just which shoddy part of their page was wasting most of the download time. There was a discussion in the WebKit blog about the reasoning behind some of the decisions about when and how to display what on a page. The option of waiting until complete was considered and rejected, but I don't recall the details. Signaturehttp://www.ericlindsay.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.