White Paper - Elements of an Efficient Website

I recently published a document on my website which describes the
elements of building an efficient website. I would like to know what
you all think of this document. It is located under the company info
area of the site as our white papers.

http://www.lakeareawebs.com/Elements.pdf

Kevin Lennon
Lake Area Webs
http://www.lakeareawebs.com

Can't really disagree with any of it.

You seem a little hung up on "bandwidth."
Although that is an issue, imho the "Real" issue / benefit is delivering the page faster to
people stuck behind 56K dial up modems.
Web designers have the habit of forgetting that just because the page loads in a blink from
their own machine, or over their high speed broadband connection, it doesn't mean
it will load that fast cousin Tillie in tupelo whose stuck behind dial up.

Also I would add a section on image optimization, and the fact that just because someone
specifies a smaller image size in their web page it doesn't make the image file smaller
it simply forces the browser to download the "whole" thing and then resize it.

Example, I had a friend ( non web designer, golf course manager ) ask me to help with an issue about
excessive load time for the course's home page.

There was a nice little "actual size" image of a golf ball with the course logo on the page.

The actual image was a 1024 x 768 .bmp

See my point??


--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
FP Cleaner
http://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
Hit Me FP
http://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm






"Kevin" <kevinlennon@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in message news:1169679833.584856.135390@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>I recently published a document on my website which describes the
> elements of building an efficient website. I would like to know what
> you all think of this document. It is located under the company info
> area of the site as our white papers.
>
> http://www.lakeareawebs.com/Elements.pdf
>
> Kevin Lennon
> Lake Area Webs
> http://www.lakeareawebs.com
>

Actually, I don't think I am "Hung Up" on bandwidth at all. I am not
sure how much background you have or do not have in the area of
networking. The concerns I am typing to point out are not how fast the
page loads on a 56k modem in outlying areas at all. The purpose of the
document was to point out that there is a finite amount of bandwidth
that the entire internet uses. Using the technologies available today
as they were writen to be used can show a 300% improvement in
efficiency over most other websites that do not implement the latest
technologies correctly. Multiply that times the millions or possibly
billions of websites on the web and you have a solution without the
need for more hardware.

The issues I am actually speaking of were addressed in a publication of
Wired as well located at
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,11579-0.html
The document starts off with the following statement.

The next time you see the phrase "highly optimized" used to sell an
Internet application, give a second thought to what it might be costing
the Net.
Leading computer networking researchers have called upon hardware and
software makers to face up to the growing problem of "bandwidth greedy"
applications that tweak the underlying protocols of the Net in their
quest for speed. If left unchecked, the problems could lead to a kind
of Internet brownout known as congestion collapse, the researchers
warned.

Their document, RFC 2309, titled "Recommendations on Queue Management
and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet", is an Informational Request
for Comments, published by the Internet Engineering Task Force. First
created in 1969, RFCs are a series of notes that discuss Internet
technologies, and often evolve into standards.

"[We] have to start addressing the question of flows that are not
responsive to congestion notification," said Sally Floyd, a staff
scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and co-author of RFC
2309.

Clicking on the above link will allow you to read the entire page.

I made a point in the white paper not to attack any particular software
or group of people that may be publishing pages or sites that are not
efficently using their resources.

The issue of a person not using a compressed image on their page while
it is a misuse it is minimal compared to the overall issue at hand.

Kevin Lennon
Lake Area Webs
http://www.lakeareawebs.com

On Jan 24, 6:46 pm, "Steve Easton" <a...@95isalive.com> wrote:
> Can't really disagree with any of it.
>
> You seem a little hung up on "bandwidth."
> Although that is an issue, imho the "Real" issue / benefit is delivering the page faster to
> people stuck behind 56K dial up modems.
> Web designers have the habit of forgetting that just because the page loads in a blink from
> their own machine, or over their high speed broadband connection, it doesn't mean
> it will load that fast cousin Tillie in tupelo whose stuck behind dial up.
>
> Also I would add a section on image optimization, and the fact that just because someone
> specifies a smaller image size in their web page it doesn't make the image file smaller
> it simply forces the browser to download the "whole" thing and then resize it.
>
> Example, I had a friend ( non web designer, golf course manager ) ask me to help with an issue about
> excessive load time for the course's home page.
>
> There was a nice little "actual size" image of a golf ball with the course logo on the page.
>
> The actual image was a 1024 x 768 .bmp
>
> See my point??
>
> --
> Steve Easton
> Microsoft MVP FrontPage
> FP Cleanerhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
> Hit Me FPhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm
>
>
>
> "Kevin" <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in messagenews:1169679833.584856.135390@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >I recently published a document on my website which describes the
> > elements of building an efficient website. I would like to know what
> > you all think of this document. It is located under the company info
> > area of the site as our white papers.
>
> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com/Elements.pdf
>
> > Kevin Lennon
> > Lake Area Webs
> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Geez Kevin,
that seems like a bit of a harsh and preachy reply to someone who was
agreeing with you. :-)

Chris

--
Have you seen ContentSeed (www.contentseed.com)?
--
Chris Leeds
Contact: http://chrisleeds.com/contact

NOTE:
This message was posted from an unmonitored email account.
This is an unfortunate necessity due to high volumes of spam sent to email
addresses in public newsgroups.
Sorry for any inconvenience.
"Kevin" <kevinlennon@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in message
news:1169687503.048622.255160@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Actually, I don't think I am "Hung Up" on bandwidth at all. I am not
> sure how much background you have or do not have in the area of
> networking. The concerns I am typing to point out are not how fast the
> page loads on a 56k modem in outlying areas at all. The purpose of the
> document was to point out that there is a finite amount of bandwidth
> that the entire internet uses. Using the technologies available today
> as they were writen to be used can show a 300% improvement in
> efficiency over most other websites that do not implement the latest
> technologies correctly. Multiply that times the millions or possibly
> billions of websites on the web and you have a solution without the
> need for more hardware.
>
> The issues I am actually speaking of were addressed in a publication of
> Wired as well located at
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,11579-0.html
> The document starts off with the following statement.
>
> The next time you see the phrase "highly optimized" used to sell an
> Internet application, give a second thought to what it might be costing
> the Net.
> Leading computer networking researchers have called upon hardware and
> software makers to face up to the growing problem of "bandwidth greedy"
> applications that tweak the underlying protocols of the Net in their
> quest for speed. If left unchecked, the problems could lead to a kind
> of Internet brownout known as congestion collapse, the researchers
> warned.
>
> Their document, RFC 2309, titled "Recommendations on Queue Management
> and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet", is an Informational Request
> for Comments, published by the Internet Engineering Task Force. First
> created in 1969, RFCs are a series of notes that discuss Internet
> technologies, and often evolve into standards.
>
> "[We] have to start addressing the question of flows that are not
> responsive to congestion notification," said Sally Floyd, a staff
> scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and co-author of RFC
> 2309.
>
> Clicking on the above link will allow you to read the entire page.
>
> I made a point in the white paper not to attack any particular software
> or group of people that may be publishing pages or sites that are not
> efficently using their resources.
>
> The issue of a person not using a compressed image on their page while
> it is a misuse it is minimal compared to the overall issue at hand.
>
> Kevin Lennon
> Lake Area Webs
> http://www.lakeareawebs.com
>
> On Jan 24, 6:46 pm, "Steve Easton" <a...@95isalive.com> wrote:
>> Can't really disagree with any of it.
>>
>> You seem a little hung up on "bandwidth."
>> Although that is an issue, imho the "Real" issue / benefit is delivering
>> the page faster to
>> people stuck behind 56K dial up modems.
>> Web designers have the habit of forgetting that just because the page
>> loads in a blink from
>> their own machine, or over their high speed broadband connection, it
>> doesn't mean
>> it will load that fast cousin Tillie in tupelo whose stuck behind dial
>> up.
>>
>> Also I would add a section on image optimization, and the fact that just
>> because someone
>> specifies a smaller image size in their web page it doesn't make the
>> image file smaller
>> it simply forces the browser to download the "whole" thing and then
>> resize it.
>>
>> Example, I had a friend ( non web designer, golf course manager ) ask me
>> to help with an issue about
>> excessive load time for the course's home page.
>>
>> There was a nice little "actual size" image of a golf ball with the
>> course logo on the page.
>>
>> The actual image was a 1024 x 768 .bmp
>>
>> See my point??
>>
>> --
>> Steve Easton
>> Microsoft MVP FrontPage
>> FP Cleanerhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
>> Hit Me FPhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> "Kevin" <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1169679833.584856.135390@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> >I recently published a document on my website which describes the
>> > elements of building an efficient website. I would like to know what
>> > you all think of this document. It is located under the company info
>> > area of the site as our white papers.
>>
>> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com/Elements.pdf
>>
>> > Kevin Lennon
>> > Lake Area Webs
>> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>

Chris,
Maybe so but I do see the topic as being a major issue worldwide in the
future. The response was not meant to be offensive in any way. The
document was written about the internet useage overall as a concern.
Not the web user that has a dial up connection. The average website
could be made substantially efficient for the current resources
available. In the document I posted I made a point of not singling out
any program or group directly although many popular programs for
developing websites generate extremely verbose code making them
bandwidth intensive.

Kevin Lennon
Lake Area Webs
http://www.lakeareawebs.com




On Jan 24, 8:28 pm, "Chris Leeds, MVP - FrontPage"
<NewsGro...@ChrisLeeds.com> wrote:
> Geez Kevin,
> that seems like a bit of a harsh and preachy reply to someone who was
> agreeing with you. :-)
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Have you seen ContentSeed (www.contentseed.com)?
> --
> Chris Leeds
> Contact:http://chrisleeds.com/contact
>
> NOTE:
> This message was posted from an unmonitored email account.
> This is an unfortunate necessity due to high volumes of spam sent to email
> addresses in public newsgroups.
> Sorry for any inconvenience."Kevin" <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in messagenews:1169687503.048622.255160@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Actually, I don't think I am "Hung Up" on bandwidth at all. I am not
> > sure how much background you have or do not have in the area of
> > networking. The concerns I am typing to point out are not how fast the
> > page loads on a 56k modem in outlying areas at all. The purpose of the
> > document was to point out that there is a finite amount of bandwidth
> > that the entire internet uses. Using the technologies available today
> > as they were writen to be used can show a 300% improvement in
> > efficiency over most other websites that do not implement the latest
> > technologies correctly. Multiply that times the millions or possibly
> > billions of websites on the web and you have a solution without the
> > need for more hardware.
>
> > The issues I am actually speaking of were addressed in a publication of
> > Wired as well located at
> >http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,11579-0.html
> > The document starts off with the following statement.
>
> > The next time you see the phrase "highly optimized" used to sell an
> > Internet application, give a second thought to what it might be costing
> > the Net.
> > Leading computer networking researchers have called upon hardware and
> > software makers to face up to the growing problem of "bandwidth greedy"
> > applications that tweak the underlying protocols of the Net in their
> > quest for speed. If left unchecked, the problems could lead to a kind
> > of Internet brownout known as congestion collapse, the researchers
> > warned.
>
> > Their document, RFC 2309, titled "Recommendations on Queue Management
> > and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet", is an Informational Request
> > for Comments, published by the Internet Engineering Task Force. First
> > created in 1969, RFCs are a series of notes that discuss Internet
> > technologies, and often evolve into standards.
>
> > "[We] have to start addressing the question of flows that are not
> > responsive to congestion notification," said Sally Floyd, a staff
> > scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and co-author of RFC
> > 2309.
>
> > Clicking on the above link will allow you to read the entire page.
>
> > I made a point in the white paper not to attack any particular software
> > or group of people that may be publishing pages or sites that are not
> > efficently using their resources.
>
> > The issue of a person not using a compressed image on their page while
> > it is a misuse it is minimal compared to the overall issue at hand.
>
> > Kevin Lennon
> > Lake Area Webs
> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com
>
> > On Jan 24, 6:46 pm, "Steve Easton" <a...@95isalive.com> wrote:
> >> Can't really disagree with any of it.
>
> >> You seem a little hung up on "bandwidth."
> >> Although that is an issue, imho the "Real" issue / benefit is delivering
> >> the page faster to
> >> people stuck behind 56K dial up modems.
> >> Web designers have the habit of forgetting that just because the page
> >> loads in a blink from
> >> their own machine, or over their high speed broadband connection, it
> >> doesn't mean
> >> it will load that fast cousin Tillie in tupelo whose stuck behind dial
> >> up.
>
> >> Also I would add a section on image optimization, and the fact that just
> >> because someone
> >> specifies a smaller image size in their web page it doesn't make the
> >> image file smaller
> >> it simply forces the browser to download the "whole" thing and then
> >> resize it.
>
> >> Example, I had a friend ( non web designer, golf course manager ) ask me
> >> to help with an issue about
> >> excessive load time for the course's home page.
>
> >> There was a nice little "actual size" image of a golf ball with the
> >> course logo on the page.
>
> >> The actual image was a 1024 x 768 .bmp
>
> >> See my point??
>
> >> --
> >> Steve Easton
> >> Microsoft MVP FrontPage
> >> FP Cleanerhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
> >> Hit Me FPhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm
>
> >> "Kevin" <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:1169679833.584856.135390@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >> >I recently published a document on my website which describes the
> >> > elements of building an efficient website. I would like to know what
> >> > you all think of this document. It is located under the company info
> >> > area of the site as our white papers.
>
> >> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com/Elements.pdf
>
> >> > Kevin Lennon
> >> > Lake Area Webs
> >> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com-Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

No offence taken. It's good to be passionate. :-)
To that end you should have a look at a book called DHTML Utopia from
www.sitepoint.com

--
Have you seen ContentSeed (www.contentseed.com)?
--
Chris Leeds
Contact: http://chrisleeds.com/contact

NOTE:
This message was posted from an unmonitored email account.
This is an unfortunate necessity due to high volumes of spam sent to email
addresses in public newsgroups.
Sorry for any inconvenience.
"Kevin" <kevinlennon@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in message
news:1169690540.575163.17580@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Chris,
> Maybe so but I do see the topic as being a major issue worldwide in the
> future. The response was not meant to be offensive in any way. The
> document was written about the internet useage overall as a concern.
> Not the web user that has a dial up connection. The average website
> could be made substantially efficient for the current resources
> available. In the document I posted I made a point of not singling out
> any program or group directly although many popular programs for
> developing websites generate extremely verbose code making them
> bandwidth intensive.
>
> Kevin Lennon
> Lake Area Webs
> http://www.lakeareawebs.com
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 24, 8:28 pm, "Chris Leeds, MVP - FrontPage"
> <NewsGro...@ChrisLeeds.com> wrote:
>> Geez Kevin,
>> that seems like a bit of a harsh and preachy reply to someone who was
>> agreeing with you. :-)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> --
>> Have you seen ContentSeed (www.contentseed.com)?
>> --
>> Chris Leeds
>> Contact:http://chrisleeds.com/contact
>>
>> NOTE:
>> This message was posted from an unmonitored email account.
>> This is an unfortunate necessity due to high volumes of spam sent to
>> email
>> addresses in public newsgroups.
>> Sorry for any inconvenience."Kevin" <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote
>> in messagenews:1169687503.048622.255160@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Actually, I don't think I am "Hung Up" on bandwidth at all. I am not
>> > sure how much background you have or do not have in the area of
>> > networking. The concerns I am typing to point out are not how fast the
>> > page loads on a 56k modem in outlying areas at all. The purpose of the
>> > document was to point out that there is a finite amount of bandwidth
>> > that the entire internet uses. Using the technologies available today
>> > as they were writen to be used can show a 300% improvement in
>> > efficiency over most other websites that do not implement the latest
>> > technologies correctly. Multiply that times the millions or possibly
>> > billions of websites on the web and you have a solution without the
>> > need for more hardware.
>>
>> > The issues I am actually speaking of were addressed in a publication of
>> > Wired as well located at
>> >http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,11579-0.html
>> > The document starts off with the following statement.
>>
>> > The next time you see the phrase "highly optimized" used to sell an
>> > Internet application, give a second thought to what it might be costing
>> > the Net.
>> > Leading computer networking researchers have called upon hardware and
>> > software makers to face up to the growing problem of "bandwidth greedy"
>> > applications that tweak the underlying protocols of the Net in their
>> > quest for speed. If left unchecked, the problems could lead to a kind
>> > of Internet brownout known as congestion collapse, the researchers
>> > warned.
>>
>> > Their document, RFC 2309, titled "Recommendations on Queue Management
>> > and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet", is an Informational Request
>> > for Comments, published by the Internet Engineering Task Force. First
>> > created in 1969, RFCs are a series of notes that discuss Internet
>> > technologies, and often evolve into standards.
>>
>> > "[We] have to start addressing the question of flows that are not
>> > responsive to congestion notification," said Sally Floyd, a staff
>> > scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and co-author of RFC
>> > 2309.
>>
>> > Clicking on the above link will allow you to read the entire page.
>>
>> > I made a point in the white paper not to attack any particular software
>> > or group of people that may be publishing pages or sites that are not
>> > efficently using their resources.
>>
>> > The issue of a person not using a compressed image on their page while
>> > it is a misuse it is minimal compared to the overall issue at hand.
>>
>> > Kevin Lennon
>> > Lake Area Webs
>> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com
>>
>> > On Jan 24, 6:46 pm, "Steve Easton" <a...@95isalive.com> wrote:
>> >> Can't really disagree with any of it.
>>
>> >> You seem a little hung up on "bandwidth."
>> >> Although that is an issue, imho the "Real" issue / benefit is
>> >> delivering
>> >> the page faster to
>> >> people stuck behind 56K dial up modems.
>> >> Web designers have the habit of forgetting that just because the page
>> >> loads in a blink from
>> >> their own machine, or over their high speed broadband connection, it
>> >> doesn't mean
>> >> it will load that fast cousin Tillie in tupelo whose stuck behind dial
>> >> up.
>>
>> >> Also I would add a section on image optimization, and the fact that
>> >> just
>> >> because someone
>> >> specifies a smaller image size in their web page it doesn't make the
>> >> image file smaller
>> >> it simply forces the browser to download the "whole" thing and then
>> >> resize it.
>>
>> >> Example, I had a friend ( non web designer, golf course manager ) ask
>> >> me
>> >> to help with an issue about
>> >> excessive load time for the course's home page.
>>
>> >> There was a nice little "actual size" image of a golf ball with the
>> >> course logo on the page.
>>
>> >> The actual image was a 1024 x 768 .bmp
>>
>> >> See my point??
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Steve Easton
>> >> Microsoft MVP FrontPage
>> >> FP Cleanerhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
>> >> Hit Me FPhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm
>>
>> >> "Kevin" <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:1169679833.584856.135390@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >I recently published a document on my website which describes the
>> >> > elements of building an efficient website. I would like to know what
>> >> > you all think of this document. It is located under the company info
>> >> > area of the site as our white papers.
>>
>> >> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com/Elements.pdf
>>
>> >> > Kevin Lennon
>> >> > Lake Area Webs
>> >> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com-Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text --
>> >> >Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>

On Jan 24, 6:46 pm, "Steve Easton" <a...@95isalive.com> wrote:
> Can't really disagree with any of it.
.....
> Also I would add a section on image optimization, and the fact that just because someone
> specifies a smaller image size in their web page it doesn't make the image file smaller
> it simply forces the browser to download the "whole" thing and then resize it.
>

Point well taken Steve. Usually there is at least a 10 to 1 reduction
in size when a .bmp is compressed with a .jpg.

In either case it has to be loaded. Makes you wonder what happens with
a Flash movie clip (vector graphics notwithstanding) ?

Ok,
Actually there isn't a finite amount of bandwidth available to "the internet."
Bandwidth capacity is growing exponentially and has been since the infancy of the internet,
via more efficient servers, more efficient compression algorithms for the servers and the files they serve.
More fiber optic capacity, higher speed servers and on and on.
You are aware that server administrators can set the compression level used to send files from the server??
Have you ever done it in IIS??

Years ago bandwidth "was" an issue with web site creation, to the point that people stuck with html files
that were limited to 64 kb. Which to be honest was a limitation of Notepad, not necessarily the "internet,"
and also because the majority of the world was behind 56k or slower dial up modems, and which also was the reason web
authors placed links on the opposite side of the page from the scroll bar.
( to prevent people from mistakenly slipping off of the scroll bar and clicking links opening a page they didn't intend
too and "wasting bandwidth.")

Is Bandwidth an issue today??
imho no. The issue which you mainly stated, is clean, standards compliant html, styled with CSS and ensuring that
binary files ( images )
are optimized to best possible extent.

The main goal imho "Is" how long it takes a page to load on cousin Tillie from Tupelo's 56k modem, and to be truthful
if people would concern themselves with the cousin Tillies of the world then your "bandwidth" concerns wouldn't be an
issue.

It's not your intent I was questioning, it was just how you were trying to get the message across.
The majority of the people equate "Bandwidth" with how fast something loads in their machine.
That's why people pay extra for DSL and Cable internet.


--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
FP Cleaner
http://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
Hit Me FP
http://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm






"Kevin" <kevinlennon@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in message news:1169687503.048622.255160@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Actually, I don't think I am "Hung Up" on bandwidth at all. I am not
> sure how much background you have or do not have in the area of
> networking. The concerns I am typing to point out are not how fast the
> page loads on a 56k modem in outlying areas at all. The purpose of the
> document was to point out that there is a finite amount of bandwidth
> that the entire internet uses. Using the technologies available today
> as they were writen to be used can show a 300% improvement in
> efficiency over most other websites that do not implement the latest
> technologies correctly. Multiply that times the millions or possibly
> billions of websites on the web and you have a solution without the
> need for more hardware.
>
> The issues I am actually speaking of were addressed in a publication of
> Wired as well located at
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,11579-0.html
> The document starts off with the following statement.
>
> The next time you see the phrase "highly optimized" used to sell an
> Internet application, give a second thought to what it might be costing
> the Net.
> Leading computer networking researchers have called upon hardware and
> software makers to face up to the growing problem of "bandwidth greedy"
> applications that tweak the underlying protocols of the Net in their
> quest for speed. If left unchecked, the problems could lead to a kind
> of Internet brownout known as congestion collapse, the researchers
> warned.
>
> Their document, RFC 2309, titled "Recommendations on Queue Management
> and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet", is an Informational Request
> for Comments, published by the Internet Engineering Task Force. First
> created in 1969, RFCs are a series of notes that discuss Internet
> technologies, and often evolve into standards.
>
> "[We] have to start addressing the question of flows that are not
> responsive to congestion notification," said Sally Floyd, a staff
> scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and co-author of RFC
> 2309.
>
> Clicking on the above link will allow you to read the entire page.
>
> I made a point in the white paper not to attack any particular software
> or group of people that may be publishing pages or sites that are not
> efficently using their resources.
>
> The issue of a person not using a compressed image on their page while
> it is a misuse it is minimal compared to the overall issue at hand.
>
> Kevin Lennon
> Lake Area Webs
> http://www.lakeareawebs.com
>
> On Jan 24, 6:46 pm, "Steve Easton" <a...@95isalive.com> wrote:
>> Can't really disagree with any of it.
>>
>> You seem a little hung up on "bandwidth."
>> Although that is an issue, imho the "Real" issue / benefit is delivering the page faster to
>> people stuck behind 56K dial up modems.
>> Web designers have the habit of forgetting that just because the page loads in a blink from
>> their own machine, or over their high speed broadband connection, it doesn't mean
>> it will load that fast cousin Tillie in tupelo whose stuck behind dial up.
>>
>> Also I would add a section on image optimization, and the fact that just because someone
>> specifies a smaller image size in their web page it doesn't make the image file smaller
>> it simply forces the browser to download the "whole" thing and then resize it.
>>
>> Example, I had a friend ( non web designer, golf course manager ) ask me to help with an issue about
>> excessive load time for the course's home page.
>>
>> There was a nice little "actual size" image of a golf ball with the course logo on the page.
>>
>> The actual image was a 1024 x 768 .bmp
>>
>> See my point??
>>
>> --
>> Steve Easton
>> Microsoft MVP FrontPage
>> FP Cleanerhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
>> Hit Me FPhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> "Kevin" <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in messagenews:1169679833.584856.135390@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> >I recently published a document on my website which describes the
>> > elements of building an efficient website. I would like to know what
>> > you all think of this document. It is located under the company info
>> > area of the site as our white papers.
>>
>> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com/Elements.pdf
>>
>> > Kevin Lennon
>> > Lake Area Webs
>> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>

Steve,
I have all sorts of references stating that the amount of bandwidth
currently available on the internet is limited. Can you support your
alligations that internet bandwith is not finite world wide with
documentation from reliable verifiable sources? In fact the majority of
the internet bandwith is being taken up by internet television and
multimedia applications. There are thousands if not millions of people
outside of the USA that have limited or no access to the internet at
all. You might want to think of the world wide picture instead of the
aunt tillies in the world. The problem is very real as the people
require more and more bandwidth at exponental rates and adding more
hardware or fiber optic lines while it is slow and steady it cannot
keep up with the growing need. The white paper was written on that
basis after reading the scientific documentation about the subject
matter at hand.

Kevin Lennon
Lake Area Webs
http://www.lakeareawebs.com


On Jan 24, 10:15 pm, "Steve Easton" <a...@95isalive.com> wrote:
> Ok,
> Actually there isn't a finite amount of bandwidth available to "the internet."
> Bandwidth capacity is growing exponentially and has been since the infancy of the internet,
> via more efficient servers, more efficient compression algorithms for the servers and the files they serve.
> More fiber optic capacity, higher speed servers and on and on.
> You are aware that server administrators can set the compression level used to send files from the server??
> Have you ever done it in IIS??
>
> Years ago bandwidth "was" an issue with web site creation, to the point that people stuck with html files
> that were limited to 64 kb. Which to be honest was a limitation of Notepad, not necessarily the "internet,"
> and also because the majority of the world was behind 56k or slower dial up modems, and which also was the reason web
> authors placed links on the opposite side of the page from the scroll bar.
> ( to prevent people from mistakenly slipping off of the scroll bar and clicking links opening a page they didn't intend
> too and "wasting bandwidth.")
>
> Is Bandwidth an issue today??
> imho no. The issue which you mainly stated, is clean, standards compliant html, styled with CSS and ensuring that
> binary files ( images )
> are optimized to best possible extent.
>
> The main goal imho "Is" how long it takes a page to load on cousin Tillie from Tupelo's 56k modem, and to be truthful
> if people would concern themselves with the cousin Tillies of the world then your "bandwidth" concerns wouldn't be an
> issue.
>
> It's not your intent I was questioning, it was just how you were trying to get the message across.
> The majority of the people equate "Bandwidth" with how fast something loads in their machine.
> That's why people pay extra for DSL and Cable internet.
>
> --
> Steve Easton
> Microsoft MVP FrontPage
> FP Cleanerhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
> Hit Me FPhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm
>
>
>
> "Kevin" <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in messagenews:1169687503.048622.255160@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> > Actually, I don't think I am "Hung Up" on bandwidth at all. I am not
> > sure how much background you have or do not have in the area of
> > networking. The concerns I am typing to point out are not how fast the
> > page loads on a 56k modem in outlying areas at all. The purpose of the
> > document was to point out that there is a finite amount of bandwidth
> > that the entire internet uses. Using the technologies available today
> > as they were writen to be used can show a 300% improvement in
> > efficiency over most other websites that do not implement the latest
> > technologies correctly. Multiply that times the millions or possibly
> > billions of websites on the web and you have a solution without the
> > need for more hardware.
>
> > The issues I am actually speaking of were addressed in a publication of
> > Wired as well located at
> >http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,11579-0.html
> > The document starts off with the following statement.
>
> > The next time you see the phrase "highly optimized" used to sell an
> > Internet application, give a second thought to what it might be costing
> > the Net.
> > Leading computer networking researchers have called upon hardware and
> > software makers to face up to the growing problem of "bandwidth greedy"
> > applications that tweak the underlying protocols of the Net in their
> > quest for speed. If left unchecked, the problems could lead to a kind
> > of Internet brownout known as congestion collapse, the researchers
> > warned.
>
> > Their document, RFC 2309, titled "Recommendations on Queue Management
> > and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet", is an Informational Request
> > for Comments, published by the Internet Engineering Task Force. First
> > created in 1969, RFCs are a series of notes that discuss Internet
> > technologies, and often evolve into standards.
>
> > "[We] have to start addressing the question of flows that are not
> > responsive to congestion notification," said Sally Floyd, a staff
> > scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and co-author of RFC
> > 2309.
>
> > Clicking on the above link will allow you to read the entire page.
>
> > I made a point in the white paper not to attack any particular software
> > or group of people that may be publishing pages or sites that are not
> > efficently using their resources.
>
> > The issue of a person not using a compressed image on their page while
> > it is a misuse it is minimal compared to the overall issue at hand.
>
> > Kevin Lennon
> > Lake Area Webs
> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com
>
> > On Jan 24, 6:46 pm, "Steve Easton" <a...@95isalive.com> wrote:
> >> Can't really disagree with any of it.
>
> >> You seem a little hung up on "bandwidth."
> >> Although that is an issue, imho the "Real" issue / benefit is delivering the page faster to
> >> people stuck behind 56K dial up modems.
> >> Web designers have the habit of forgetting that just because the page loads in a blink from
> >> their own machine, or over their high speed broadband connection, it doesn't mean
> >> it will load that fast cousin Tillie in tupelo whose stuck behind dial up.
>
> >> Also I would add a section on image optimization, and the fact that just because someone
> >> specifies a smaller image size in their web page it doesn't make the image file smaller
> >> it simply forces the browser to download the "whole" thing and then resize it.
>
> >> Example, I had a friend ( non web designer, golf course manager ) ask me to help with an issue about
> >> excessive load time for the course's home page.
>
> >> There was a nice little "actual size" image of a golf ball with the course logo on the page.
>
> >> The actual image was a 1024 x 768 .bmp
>
> >> See my point??
>
> >> --
> >> Steve Easton
> >> Microsoft MVP FrontPage
> >> FP Cleanerhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
> >> Hit Me FPhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm
>
> >> "Kevin" <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in messagenews:1169679833.584856.135390@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >> >I recently published a document on my website which describes the
> >> > elements of building an efficient website. I would like to know what
> >> > you all think of this document. It is located under the company info
> >> > area of the site as our white papers.
>
> >> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com/Elements.pdf
>
> >> > Kevin Lennon
> >> > Lake Area Webs
> >> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com-Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Kevin,
Well that makes sense.
At any particular point in time there is a finite amount of bandwidth available.
As an analogy at any point in time there's x gallons of water in the water tower down the street.
As the community grows another tower is built and now there's x * 2 gallons available.

But does your study take into consideration what's going to be available next month or next year??
Does the study take into consideration things such as this:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fort...82587/index.htm

As the infrastructure grows to provide internet access to those not yet internet enabled countries,
so will the bandwidth grow to go along with it.

Just because there's no internet "pipe" to someone's home in Swahili doesn't necessarily mean the lake is dry.

fwiw, my biggest problem with the internet these days is the penchant for creating eye candy versus content.
Splash pages, graphics and such that clog my DSL line so to speak and which don't actually contribute
to the content.
The typical "Please wait while so and so loads."
The standard used to be: if the page doesn't load in 15 seconds or less, you lost the visitor.
A standard which still holds true for me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your white paper. I just feel it would make more sense
to the "average" do it yourself mom and pop web masters if it used slightly different terminology.

;-)

--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
FP Cleaner
http://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
Hit Me FP
http://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm


"Kevin" <kevinlennon@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in message news:1169696598.590041.163830@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Steve,
> I have all sorts of references stating that the amount of bandwidth
> currently available on the internet is limited. Can you support your
> alligations that internet bandwith is not finite world wide with
> documentation from reliable verifiable sources? In fact the majority of
> the internet bandwith is being taken up by internet television and
> multimedia applications. There are thousands if not millions of people
> outside of the USA that have limited or no access to the internet at
> all. You might want to think of the world wide picture instead of the
> aunt tillies in the world. The problem is very real as the people
> require more and more bandwidth at exponental rates and adding more
> hardware or fiber optic lines while it is slow and steady it cannot
> keep up with the growing need. The white paper was written on that
> basis after reading the scientific documentation about the subject
> matter at hand.
>
> Kevin Lennon
> Lake Area Webs
> http://www.lakeareawebs.com
>
>
> On Jan 24, 10:15 pm, "Steve Easton" <a...@95isalive.com> wrote:
>> Ok,
>> Actually there isn't a finite amount of bandwidth available to "the internet."
>> Bandwidth capacity is growing exponentially and has been since the infancy of the internet,
>> via more efficient servers, more efficient compression algorithms for the servers and the files they serve.
>> More fiber optic capacity, higher speed servers and on and on.
>> You are aware that server administrators can set the compression level used to send files from the server??
>> Have you ever done it in IIS??
>>
>> Years ago bandwidth "was" an issue with web site creation, to the point that people stuck with html files
>> that were limited to 64 kb. Which to be honest was a limitation of Notepad, not necessarily the "internet,"
>> and also because the majority of the world was behind 56k or slower dial up modems, and which also was the reason web
>> authors placed links on the opposite side of the page from the scroll bar.
>> ( to prevent people from mistakenly slipping off of the scroll bar and clicking links opening a page they didn't
>> intend
>> too and "wasting bandwidth.")
>>
>> Is Bandwidth an issue today??
>> imho no. The issue which you mainly stated, is clean, standards compliant html, styled with CSS and ensuring that
>> binary files ( images )
>> are optimized to best possible extent.
>>
>> The main goal imho "Is" how long it takes a page to load on cousin Tillie from Tupelo's 56k modem, and to be truthful
>> if people would concern themselves with the cousin Tillies of the world then your "bandwidth" concerns wouldn't be an
>> issue.
>>
>> It's not your intent I was questioning, it was just how you were trying to get the message across.
>> The majority of the people equate "Bandwidth" with how fast something loads in their machine.
>> That's why people pay extra for DSL and Cable internet.
>>
>> --
>> Steve Easton
>> Microsoft MVP FrontPage
>> FP Cleanerhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
>> Hit Me FPhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> "Kevin" <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in messagenews:1169687503.048622.255160@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>> > Actually, I don't think I am "Hung Up" on bandwidth at all. I am not
>> > sure how much background you have or do not have in the area of
>> > networking. The concerns I am typing to point out are not how fast the
>> > page loads on a 56k modem in outlying areas at all. The purpose of the
>> > document was to point out that there is a finite amount of bandwidth
>> > that the entire internet uses. Using the technologies available today
>> > as they were writen to be used can show a 300% improvement in
>> > efficiency over most other websites that do not implement the latest
>> > technologies correctly. Multiply that times the millions or possibly
>> > billions of websites on the web and you have a solution without the
>> > need for more hardware.
>>
>> > The issues I am actually speaking of were addressed in a publication of
>> > Wired as well located at
>> >http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,11579-0.html
>> > The document starts off with the following statement.
>>
>> > The next time you see the phrase "highly optimized" used to sell an
>> > Internet application, give a second thought to what it might be costing
>> > the Net.
>> > Leading computer networking researchers have called upon hardware and
>> > software makers to face up to the growing problem of "bandwidth greedy"
>> > applications that tweak the underlying protocols of the Net in their
>> > quest for speed. If left unchecked, the problems could lead to a kind
>> > of Internet brownout known as congestion collapse, the researchers
>> > warned.
>>
>> > Their document, RFC 2309, titled "Recommendations on Queue Management
>> > and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet", is an Informational Request
>> > for Comments, published by the Internet Engineering Task Force. First
>> > created in 1969, RFCs are a series of notes that discuss Internet
>> > technologies, and often evolve into standards.
>>
>> > "[We] have to start addressing the question of flows that are not
>> > responsive to congestion notification," said Sally Floyd, a staff
>> > scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and co-author of RFC
>> > 2309.
>>
>> > Clicking on the above link will allow you to read the entire page.
>>
>> > I made a point in the white paper not to attack any particular software
>> > or group of people that may be publishing pages or sites that are not
>> > efficently using their resources.
>>
>> > The issue of a person not using a compressed image on their page while
>> > it is a misuse it is minimal compared to the overall issue at hand.
>>
>> > Kevin Lennon
>> > Lake Area Webs
>> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com
>>
>> > On Jan 24, 6:46 pm, "Steve Easton" <a...@95isalive.com> wrote:
>> >> Can't really disagree with any of it.
>>
>> >> You seem a little hung up on "bandwidth."
>> >> Although that is an issue, imho the "Real" issue / benefit is delivering the page faster to
>> >> people stuck behind 56K dial up modems.
>> >> Web designers have the habit of forgetting that just because the page loads in a blink from
>> >> their own machine, or over their high speed broadband connection, it doesn't mean
>> >> it will load that fast cousin Tillie in tupelo whose stuck behind dial up.
>>
>> >> Also I would add a section on image optimization, and the fact that just because someone
>> >> specifies a smaller image size in their web page it doesn't make the image file smaller
>> >> it simply forces the browser to download the "whole" thing and then resize it.
>>
>> >> Example, I had a friend ( non web designer, golf course manager ) ask me to help with an issue about
>> >> excessive load time for the course's home page.
>>
>> >> There was a nice little "actual size" image of a golf ball with the course logo on the page.
>>
>> >> The actual image was a 1024 x 768 .bmp
>>
>> >> See my point??
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Steve Easton
>> >> Microsoft MVP FrontPage
>> >> FP Cleanerhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/fpclean.htm
>> >> Hit Me FPhttp://www.95isalive.com/fixes/HitMeFP.htm
>>
>> >> "Kevin" <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:1169679833.584856.135390@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >I recently published a document on my website which describes the
>> >> > elements of building an efficient website. I would like to know what
>> >> > you all think of this document. It is located under the company info
>> >> > area of the site as our white papers.
>>
>> >> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com/Elements.pdf
>>
>> >> > Kevin Lennon
>> >> > Lake Area Webs
>> >> >http://www.lakeareawebs.com-Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>