Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Design and Content : Advice and comments on DHTML Menu's

[ePlanetDesign]

Hi, to all the nice WHT folks.

Issue 1:

I am thinking about using a dhtml slideout menu on my site but I am having some issues and second thoughts and I am wondering what a true professional would do in a case like this.

I bought DHTMLmenubuilder (dot com) a long time ago but when I use the slideout effect (roller) it is all choppy and jerky on wimpy computers. He has bloated the code to make it compatible with everything I guess.

Then I tried the slideout menu at youngpup.net. It works pretty good but I have since been informed that it doesn't work on Opera, Mac(IE5) and Safari.

My question is just how important is it to be all that compatible. My site does not rely on the slideout due to the fact that there will be relavant sub-menus on the backpages.

I just like the way the slideout looks and it ads a little pazazz to a site.

Any and all thoughts, comments and recommendations are welcome in this matter. Or maybe someone knows a foolproof (haha) method or program for slideout menu's.


Issue 2:

Download times! I am on a fast cable cable connection (comcast)so I have one of those cheesy free NetZero dial up accounts to test download times. It hijacks your search page but HijackThis and deleting the "basket" before it installs fixes that.

My question is, just what is acceptable download times/site size these days? I know there are a ton of issues regarding bloated scripts, too many graphics, pda compatibility, and other stuff. I have heard "design for the future"! My download time on that netzero account is about 40 seconds!!! Ouch! But then I go look at ceonex.com's portfolio and I see sites that take up to two minutes to load (host rocket, dinix, modernbill, etc).


As always any thoughts, comments, suggestions are always welcome and appreciated.

I have more but I think that's enough for now.

Thanks to all

James

[the_pm]

I think slideout menus are garbage. They slide out when you don't want them to, and they are dreadfully unreliable, unless you've made provisions for them to degrade gracefully. If I'm going to have DHTML menus, I write them myself. It's much easier than tangling with menu writers that produce Net litter. I wouldn't call slideout menus pizzazz. I'd call them PITA. Just my opinion

There's no clear-cut rule of thumb on download times, except for one - the longer someone has to wait, the higher the likelihood he or she will go elsewhere. I've heard the 10 second rule talked about a lot, and I think it's a pretty fair rule. I like to get a 10 second download at 28.8 if possible, and I have two sites that download in less than 6 seconds on 14.4 connection. If I'm relegated to a dial-up line, I won't wait 40 seconds for a site unless I know in advance there's information I simply can't get anywhere else, and then I'll disable images so I can get to the information without waiting forever.

Ceonix delivers very heavy loads, which is a shame because often times I don't think it's necessary. Every second your site spends loading is a second in which someone can leave without seeing it complete. You can decide for yourself how many seconds you're willing to risk Just for kicks, I'll say 10 sec. at 56k maximum, a fairly common measure.

[ePlanetDesign]

So in your honest opinion this http://www.eplanethosting.com/newsite-1 would be totally unnaceptable? I am sighing about now. I did stick a preloader in the flash but alot of good that does when your graphics weigh a ton.

Any suggestions?

And I agree that dhtml menu's are garbage but there are a lot of sites that use them. And I must admit I kinda like them.

[ePlanetDesign]

cartman smiley? Hahahahaah, I think this forum has a sense of humor

[the_pm]

Totally unacceptable? Not at all. Too long for my taste if I'm on dialup (it loaded in about two seconds for me at work), but not unacceptable at all. I would personally shoot for something less, but if the only thing holding up the page load is a Flash movie that doesn't contain any important information, then I wouldn't worry too much about it. But I couldn't tell how much weight was in the rest of the graphics. I'd say the rest of the site's graphics could be done in the 30-40 kb. range max (maybe less), using the right techniques and switching to .png files instead of .gif.

There's a right way and a wrong way to use DHTML menus. ake a list of sites that use them, then turn off JavaScript and visit each one. See how many of them function easily. I'll bet you about 1/5 will, maybe. Liking or not liking slideout menus is subjective, but good functionality is necessary. The easiest way to test this and to test sites that rely on Flash for navigation) is using the quick preferences available in Opera. You can turn JS and ActiveX controls on and off with one click, instead of rooting through menus to do this.

[ePlanetDesign]

my site totally depends on the little sub menu's on the back pages not the dhtml menu, but it if the dhtml adds alot to download times then I may be backing up.

is png acceptable nowadays? I personally don't give a rats patootie about old browsers, I look at it this way, if someone wants hosting, do I want to even deal with someone that can't even upgrade their browser? Hmmm, if that's the case, can they pay their bill...

anyways, I really appreciate your advice.

I am curious about something, if you were to write a menu for the eplanet site (assuming you are available) what would be the process and what would you charge? Again; assuming you are available. Just a thought.

Thanks again

[the_pm]

Well, I can't stress enough how good it is that your site functions without needing those menus. As long as this is the case, assuming they're not too bulky, there's nothing wrong with having them.

Yes, png is acceptable nowadays, so long as you're not relying on its alpha properties. IE still doesn't know how to handle this. But for straight-up image, .png is great! Here's a quick read on the subject. It's a few years old, but good info nonetheless. http://www.evolt.org/article/To_PNG_..._PNG/22/60134/ The important thing to read here is the comments section, how exporting .png files from Fireworks works almost flawlessly. I use Fireworks for this task, and I'm amazed at the file size savings and accuracy of color.

Keep in mind that it's easy to chastise someone for not upgrading a browser, but a) not everyone understands the shortcomings of IE or other older browser builds, b) browser upgrades may not be possible with larger companies, because IT has to migrate a large number of PCs at once, and this will usually lead to skipping software generations, and c) people get used to their browsers and don't want to change. They figure (with some legitimacy) that if their browser isn't more than a couple years old, it ought to work fine. Remember this - if your site doesn't work on someone's browser, that person will assume there's something wrong with your site, not with his or her browser! It's all a matter of perception, and in this case I recommend looking at it from a potential customer's point of view. Makes life hard sometime, eh?

I'd be interested in talking with you about your menus. I may or may not be able to help, but if not, I might still be able to offer you some guidance along the way. I'll take this part offline (it really shouldn't be discussed in this forum ).

[ePlanetDesign]

I wrote a whole thing but wht dumped it. I don't feel like writing it again.

[ePlanetDesign]

And just for kicks, I went to your site, and... I have ordered alot of hosting in my day and I would never order from a site like that. I would however order form hostrocket, or others that dwell on hosting.

[ePlanetDesign]

a navigation example is pronicsolutions.com

[BigBison]

There's no need to dis Paul's site, in light of the help he gave you, jwebby. Is your problem with his site's design? To each his own. But if you don't like his hosting plans, simply don't order them. I've seen Paul's site, and his offering is certainly unique. I think that's outstanding -- way to distinguish your offering in a crowded market, plhhosting! There's nothing wrong with targeting a niche instead of appealing to the mass market. It's called strategy, and also kind of makes it obvious that his business focuses on design, not rack after rack of servers.

[Christina]

jwebby, I agree with BigBison, that you shouldn't dis Paul's site. You came here for help and if anyone is qualified in web development, it is Paul. So I wouldn't take Paul's words lightly as his words are always quite helpful when it comes to Web development.

Also, your mockup of your new site and the example navigation site looks awfully similar, I guess uniqueness isn't what you're going for?

[the_pm]

Wow. That's a blind-siding I didn't really see coming. Thanks for your kind words guys. You step away to do some shopping and have dinner and come back to this...

Certainly I value people's opinions of my work...in this case, I think I would be a little more open to criticism if I'd asked for it. But either way, the site serves my purposes quite well, and I'm neither offended nor ashamed. In the future if I'm looking for feedback regarding my hosting site's design, I'll keep your statements in mind and add them to whatever else is said.

[ePlanetDesign]

I think you guys took that wrong. No... I worded it wrong, I am very sorry that it came out like that. I meant no disrespect, It's just that the site doesn't seem to reflect hosting as I see it. I guess that makes me an idiot. I wish I could take back that post but I can't.


Again I'm sorry for wording that wrong. I had no right to say what I said.
Now I feel terrible.