Steel Guitar Sites That Take Too Long To Load

Cal Sharp · Post by **Cal Sharp** » 20 Nov 2011 3:51 pm

I'm cursed with AT&T for an internet provider, and it's really slow, despite the fact that they call it FastAccess. Faster than dial-up, but not nearly as speedy as the Comcast connection I used to have. So web pages sometimes take a long time to load, especially if they're loaded with big graphics. This is especially onerous since I'm a web developer.

I like to browse the steel guitar manufacturers' web sites, but some of them have some really humungous graphics on their sites, and rather than wait for maybe a minute to see a picture of their latest model I'll often times just go somewhere else. Studies have shown that 40% of users will abandon a website that takes more than three seconds to load.

Huge graphics = bad web design. Graphics for the web should be well under 100Kb, like maybe 50Kb, but I've seen steel guitar pictures that are over 3Mb, which is roughly 3,000Kb, like 60 times too big for the web. Pictures like this are apparently right out of the camera, with no compression for the web. Any web developer, me, for instance, would compress images down to a size that would still look good and load quickly enough so the visitor wouldn't give up and go to another site. Another downside of huge graphics is that it uses up a lot of bandwidth on your server, and if you exceed your quota you might get charged extra for it at the end of the month, or your site could even go offline until you up your quota.

Yeah, money's tight and a competent webmaster, or even a graphic designer who knows something about web graphics, might not always be in the budget, but a business website really should have graphics that are a reasonable size, which not only helps give the site a professional appearance, but is also a courtesy to visitors, since they don't really want a frustrating experience when they visit your site. If there's pictures of, say, 20 steel guitars that haven't been compressed properly on one web page it's gonna take a while.

And if a steel guitar is just so gorgeous that it need to be displayed at full size, print quality, then that image should be linked from a smaller image or a thumbnail, maybe even with a warning that you can go get a cup of coffee while it's downloading if you have a slow connection.

Below are 3 versions of the same picture at different compression levels. They're all the same size, 500 pixels by 375 pixels, yet they download at different speeds according to how much they've been compressed, and the difference in quality is minimal. The original photo right out of the camera is 3MB, which would take 375 seconds to download at 56.6 kbps (kilobits per second). If you want to see it you can go here. I have it on my own server, where I do web development, so we don't waste any SGF bandwidth on this demonstration.

Maximum quality, minimal compression
153kb, 29 sec to download at 56.6 kbps

High quality, more compression
40kb, 8 sec to download at 56.6 kbps

Medium quality, even more compression
20kb, 5 sec to download at 56.6 kbps

Michael Maddex · Post by **Michael Maddex** » 20 Nov 2011 4:54 pm

Cal, it's not just the steel guitar manufacturers, it's web sites from all sorts folks in music and art. My Internet connection is WildBlue Satellite, which is also pretty slow and with some bandwidth limitations. I'm like you, big images can drive me away from a web site. Worse, to me, is the scripting that automatically starts playing a sound clip or displaying a slide show. With my little pipe and old computers, that sort of thing can bring my connection to a standstill or darn near. People, put a Start Button there. I'll take a look/listen when I'm ready. OK, end of the rant. I could go on, but let's hear some more complaints from some others. Oh, and please check your site out with something other than IE running on a new computer on a fat pipe to get an idea of how your potential audience will see it.

Richard Sinkler · Post by **Richard Sinkler** » 20 Nov 2011 5:28 pm

Bugs me too. I am a hobbyest web designer (nowhere near the caliber of Cal) and I know better than to put huge pics on a site. And, the music playing when you open a site, NOT COOL. It used to be in fashion a long time ago along with animated gif's of mailboxes and arrows, but is generally looked upon now by the web design community as bad design. It's disappointing to see a great website destroyed by slow downloads and music playing when I don't want it.

Cal Sharp · Post by **Cal Sharp** » 20 Nov 2011 5:35 pm

You guys are so right.
Remember Geocities, years ago when any amateur could put up a horrible looking site? Check this out: http://wonder-tonic.com/geocitiesizer/ Type in some web site and see what it would look like if it were done in Geocities. Hilarious.

Richard Sinkler · Post by **Richard Sinkler** » 20 Nov 2011 6:16 pm

Geocities... Arghh. I think I'll pass.

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 20 Nov 2011 7:36 pm

When you upload a pic to this site, it is re-rendered at a preset quality level to add the watermark. That's why your 3 pictures look the same.

Cal Sharp · Post by **Cal Sharp** » 20 Nov 2011 7:40 pm

I knew that, but I thought it would compress graphics at a percentage of the original, instead of all being the same.
Here's an accurate comparison of the various compressions.

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 20 Nov 2011 8:52 pm

As I often have a concert playing from sugarmegs.org or Wolfgang's Vault, and as I am often recording it it real time too (completely legal, even encouraged BTW) I have made it a habit to never go back to any website that starts beaming music over what I've chosen to hear. And I know I can turn it off - after it's ruined a recording - but what I listen to is always and forever will be my choice, not anyone else's. I don't go to ESPN.com because of streaming videos, I don't go to that new steel guitar blog, etc. Shame me twice, poo on you (etc.)

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 20 Nov 2011 10:29 pm

Cal Sharp wrote:Here's an accurate comparison of the various compressions.

They really do look the same. Thanks for the demo.

Greg Wisecup · Post by **Greg Wisecup** » 21 Nov 2011 10:40 am

What is also important and what Cal forgot to mention is; is that's Lynn Owlsly's Derby sittin there next to his Emmons! ................sorry

Cal Sharp · Post by **Cal Sharp** » 21 Nov 2011 3:28 pm

Right, Greg. And there was another steel guitar player there, too, singing.

Greg Wisecup · Post by **Greg Wisecup** » 21 Nov 2011 4:58 pm

I didn't see that pic. Is that Weldon? can't really tell. Oh well; back to the book!

Cal Sharp · Post by **Cal Sharp** » 21 Nov 2011 5:25 pm

Yep, that's the Welephant. He sings pretty good, but I couldn't get him to do "Once A Day". I guess he was afraid I'd screw up the intro and throw him off.
We're getting some Topic Drift here... Oh wait, never mind, my fault. Maybe someone who needs a website will holler at me.

Graham · Post by **Graham** » 22 Nov 2011 5:53 am

1966 lp, Weldon sings No More Money, No More Honey, which he also wrote. Also sings some harmony on 3 songs with Jimmy Gateley and Len Miller.

This was the only lp of the 4 done by the Po' Boys with Weldon. Sonny Garrish took over for him in '67.

Michael Maddex · Post by **Michael Maddex** » 22 Nov 2011 7:45 am

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=215732

I didn't get to hear any of that because I have my NoScript plug-in running.