Broadband

[Brian Ellis]

On a BBC World steam radio broadcast today, the speaker stated that more than 90% of Internet users in the developed world do NOT have a broadband connection and >99% in developing nations.

Is this not a condemnation of the trend to have bigger and glossier home pages, with Flash and other animations and hefty graphics and sound? Is this not a sign of selfishness or arrogance on the part of those who design web sites requiring complex plug-ins and scripts and long download times? One case was cited where a developing-nation user complained that one hour of on-line time cost him 10% of his weekly income and his ISP worked at 14 kbit/s.

Which is more important on a web site, the appearance or the text message?

[az]

Depends. Art websites of course may use more bandwidth, as do websites offering streaming content (whether this is a good idea is another topic).

But generally, of course, you'll want to reach as many people as possible with a website, thus you should make it small and fast, visually appealing without obstructing the content, and compatible with as many browsers as possible, if possible even accessible for users with disabilities.

AZ

[Brian Ellis]

Yes, obviously, art sites do, by definition, require bandwidth but even then the use of thumbnails can be helpful because it allows the surfer to enlarge only what he wants.

When I wrote this, I was thinking mainly of company web sites. There was one I accessed recently that took 14 minutes to download at ~48 kbit/s and a good connection. This is, IMHO, reprehensible and probably sends more prospective buyers to the competition than gathers in new customers.

[Ribbit]

Re: Broadband

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
Is this not a sign of selfishness or arrogance on the part of those who design web sites requiring complex plug-ins and scripts and long download times?

I wouldn't call it selfishness or arrogance, more ignorance (flashier is better, right?) and what I call the Magpie Effect (Oooh, shiny!)...

[GT98]

Other thing to consider also is that people who still use dial up in the developed world are either cheap or dont use the internet that much and makes more sense to pay 20 bucks a month instead of $50 bucks a month or so broadband costs.

[The PIT]

Originally posted by GT98
Other thing to consider also is that people who still use dial up in the developed world are either cheap or dont use the internet that much and makes more sense to pay 20 bucks a month instead of $50 bucks a month or so broadband costs.

Or users have access to another high speed connection (e.g worklan) and can't see the point of upgrading to something that costs £15 per month extra.

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by GT98
Other thing to consider also is that people who still use dial up in the developed world are either cheap or dont use the internet that much and makes more sense to pay 20 bucks a month instead of $50 bucks a month or so broadband costs.

This is UTTER RUBBISH. I have no access to broadband by any means. There are millions of users who cannot obtain ADSL because either they are too far from a node or because their telecomms suppliers will not install it. Many of the same users have no access to cable and their satellite operators do not offer the service either.

I have been told that ADSL may come to my area by end 2005. if I'm lucky (I applied for it well over two years ago). In the meanwhile, I'm stuck with DUN. The kind of statement you make out of ignorance is typical of the sites that inundate us with long download times and certainly borders on arrogance.

AND my DUN costs me nearly $50 per month. into the bargain

[Nowhere]

The same here...ADSL isn't available yet (although probably it will be sooner than at your place, Brian).
Currently I have the fastest reasonable connection available here, 115 kbit/s up&down (70 while using phone).
Of the things I can get here only two channel ISDN is little faster, but you have to pay per minute.
And I don't count polpak-t...(2mbit/s, connected to backbone, or maybe part of it I think, and due to cost not for indyviduals...)

[gt40]

Here's a good Broad Band:
http://www.girlschool.co.uk/

[The PIT]

Theres a lot of people I know they haven't got broadband becuase they're just not bothered to swap over. Can't be the cost. £19 compaired to £16 it's just that they can't be bothered.

[GT98]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
This is UTTER RUBBISH. I have no access to broadband by any means. There are millions of users who cannot obtain ADSL because either they are too far from a node or because their telecomms suppliers will not install it. Many of the same users have no access to cable and their satellite operators do not offer the service either.

I have been told that ADSL may come to my area by end 2005. if I'm lucky (I applied for it well over two years ago). In the meanwhile, I'm stuck with DUN. The kind of statement you make out of ignorance is typical of the sites that inundate us with long download times and certainly borders on arrogance.

AND my DUN costs me nearly $50 per month. into the bargain

I have no control over what your country does or doesn't do when it comes down to Broadband. I can't help it if the Telecoms or TV Cable companies don't want to spend their money on upgrading their backbones or even have funds to do that. I'm basing my experiences where I live in the US.

I'm sure in some countries finding your next meal is more important then how fast you can get on the internet.

It all boils down to if there's big enough demand for it, the demand will be satisfied by someone. Simple Economics, why cater to the crowd that doesn't put any money in your pocket (i.e. Third world on Dial-up or what not) and focus your efforts on the ones that do...that have broadband etc...

Broadband is a luxury not a necessity.

[The PIT]

GT98 your orginal statement wasn't rubbish by the way.

In my case I didn't go to broadband striaght away becuase.

1) Had very fast access at work.

2) The cost was rather high.


I finally left BT after they pissed me off and I found plusnet offered broadband connection for three pounds more. This connection was fairly hidden on their web site though.

[drslump]

Originally posted by az
But generally, of course, you'll want to reach as many people as possible with a website, thus you should make it small and fast, visually appealing without obstructing the content, and compatible with as many browsers as possible, if possible even accessible for users with disabilities.

PNG and JPEG 2000 are two formats which can make the page size smaller but since IExplorer doesn't support it properly you can't rely on them, at least you need to have a version with gifs and jpeg
CSS became a full WWC recomendation around 1997 more or less, but I have yet to see a browser that supports the full specification properly. The good thing about CSS is that it defines how the data should be displayed while html just defines the data.
Then, on a properly designed CSS/HTML web page in a browser that supports CSS properly you could get just the data with slow connection speeds and a fancy all-graphical web page on a broadband connection.

ciao, Ivan

[Gurm]

I am SOOO not gonna get involved in this, but let's just say that I've been aware for SOME TIME that the number of people on the Internet in general isn't as big as they'd like you to think... nevermind the number of people with broadband.

Gpar_

[GNEP]

It's a conspiracy!