Printable View
Hi,
i created a personal website using Xtreme Pro 4 (without the "website" export option) then re-assembles in SwishMax2 and uploaded to my personal websapce.
I was wondering if members with different access ( I am DSL) would give me idea on the access speed and browser functionality, please.
The site is
http://members.shaw.ca/macgregorj/
thanks
I'm on 1.5mbit dsl and it takes around 1 minute 25 secs to load in each browser Scotty.
Opera renders your entire flash page very small. (see attached)
Looking at your source you have set the size at 100% x 100% rather then a defined size?
Leaving your visitors to view just a blue screen for so long means they will likely click-away.
I agree with Sledger, it takes far too long to load (with no feedback to the user) and when loaded it has navigation problems.
Even with 'feedback' (Loading progress) 100% flash sites annoy the cr*p out of me big time.
Often I'm left waiting far too long before I see any content then only to find it doesn't have what I'm looking for in the first place. Worse still, any choices available on that first 'flash' page generally result in another lengthy wait as the link just loads another flash page. So repeatedly I'm being forced to download megabytes of silly unnecessary flash data for no good reason other than to satisfy their advertising depts creativity and justify their pay cheques.
In Opera and FF I can disable flash entirely which renders a simple flash button instead which I can press should I really want to view it. If the page loads with nothing but one flash button (meaning it's 100% flash), I always click away and move one.
Here's a typical example which in my mind is absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary, (prepaid mobile broadband).
It would be useful if a plain ol' html site could be offered as an alternative for people on slow connections or who simply do not enjoy (or want) the TV Commercial-like 'push' production of flash.
Of course I'm not saying flash doesn't have it's place, it does. But it should not be overused or incorrectly used. Often it is.
Of course this is my opinion only - other people may really like these sites.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by sledger
Yes Steve, it's just your opinion. From your description I was expecting far worse from the link - it's mildly amusing though a tad cumbersome.
We'll agree to differ about Flash.
Paul
Hi,
Well I thank you for your feedback all of it good and bad. I created the site just to amuse myself and keep my mind a little active. The site I created was just for my enjoyment and for the benefit of the people I play dungeons and dragons on-line with. It is not to promote a product or service in any way.
As you might not be aware Xara Xtreme Pro 4 doesn't allow my system to export as "website" for some reason so I created the layout in Xtreme and export as png files then assmble page in SwishMax.
I appreciate the feed back and have re done the site which I may ask for opinions again.
Jim
Scotty, sorry to hear your still having problems exporting to html. If you like, you could send me your xar file and I'll export it to html for you and email it back.
Hi Egg,
I am overwhelmed a your offer thanks! I have a new computer ordered I should have it by this Friday. thank you for he gracious offer tho'.
As stated in my previous post it is just to amuse myself and keep my brain active. I will Probably change it two or three times in a week.
Jim
p.s already broke it down to one page for each character.
Jim
Hi,
Here's a tool to see how things are loading
http://www.octagate.com/service/sitetimer/
Hans
Thanks Hans, good link.
It's not entirely representative of flash sites, though.
Interesting tool, but it doesn't appear to take into account (download) flash content Hans.
It scores Scotty's page as loading in 1.25 seconds, which of course it doesn't because is hasn't looked at the flash.
Ah, Paul beat me to it ;)
I think that the pics created in xtreme were used in the highest quality in swishmax.
Therefore the swf takes a long load,think of a HTML page with many big pics.
Better build the swf dynamical;
ie. loading pics only when called for ,this way you create a smoother load.
Or reduce the size of the pics used in the swf.
(just took a peak at your directory and saw you created static swf of the characters you used and the one i downloaded was already 364Kb.)
If you use vector drawings,possible as swf,make them small,as your CPU and your bandwidth goes down the drain because,unlike a bitmap,a vector needs to be redrawn every moment its on screen.
Hans
(tough not completely representative for flash sites its still a handy tool)
Hi All,
Thanks all for the responses. I am still working on it! (probably forever as I change my design everytime I re-do it). All the feed back is helpfull and appreciated.
for some reason I had trouble with some of the new stuff being updated and replacing the old files.
the new link is
http://members.shaw.ca/macgregorj/Default.html
I used to be Index.html but index.htmls would not update when tansfering new files.
Again Thanks All
Jim
This happens when your browser is loading the older files from it's cache. Empty your browser cache and then revisit the URL for the newer updated contents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty
Hi Hans,
Could you explain that in greater detail as I don't understand it.Quote:
If you use vector drawings,possible as swf,make them small,as your CPU and your bandwidth goes down the drain because,unlike a bitmap,a vector needs to be redrawn every moment its on screen.
Hans, like Egg, I'm looking forward for an explanation of this. From my point of view it's not really true at all. I would agree if we were discussing a Vectrex games console, but not flash.Quote:
Originally Posted by haakoo
Paul
Hi,
Egg and Paul,here's a page for flash lite in which is described why vectors are cpu consuming.
Couldn't find one for flash ,though,but same applies,you can try it out yourselfs. ;)
It is not the vector object itself but if used many objects and applied transparency,motion and such
(like in this case)
Hans
Hi Hans,
Thanks for the link, but it doesn't support your assertion that
"If you use vector drawings,possible as swf,make them small,as your CPU and your bandwidth goes down the drain because,unlike a bitmap,a vector needs to be redrawn every moment its on screen."
Vectors are not redrawn every moment they are on screen, nor is there a direct correlation between vector size and CPU consumption. Neither is there any correlation between the complexity of vector graphics and bandwidth!
I am aware of the advice given in the link that you gave. It's particularly important in flashlite applications because the CPUs of mobile devices (phones in most cases) aren't that powerful compared to a desktop and the more CPU cycles consumed the greater the drain on the battery. Flash lite applications have to be highly economical and optimised when animating. When not animating they don't redraw vectors continuously.
On the desktop, the CPUs are far faster than those used in mobile devices, so the flashlite guidelines, though applicable have far less weight - in general the availability of CPU power means the conservation of CPU power becomes less important in most cases and particularly irrelevant for vector images where animation does not take place.
Vectors are a highly concise description of a shape and fill and as such they are far smaller in filesize than the bitmap equivalent and correspondingly have improved bandwidth characteristics compared to bitmaps.
Paul
Some other pointers;
http://aralbalkan.com/759
http://www.firewheeldesign.com/spark..._vs_vector.php
Hans
Thanks Hans - you don't give up without a fight!Quote:
Originally Posted by haakoo
The first link you gave describes the efficiency of using vector shapes in flash versus bitmaps. The actual discussion is centered around the efficiency of flash animation where in an animation scenario flash is recalculating vector positions but for bitmaps is using a cached bitmap and therefore just moving pixels about. There's a cutoff between animating a complex vector shape versus animating a cached bitmap image of that same shape. For simple vector shapes, they will be more efficient to animate than the equivalent bitmap image, for complex shapes the opposite will hold true.
The second link describes why bitmaps are supplied for icons in preference to vector shapes. The discussion centres on the fact that while vectors are highly scalable, in practice they are still mapped to a finite pixel screen and so can lose clarity when vector edges don't correspond with exact pixels. Therefore for icons the preference is to provide fixed size bitmaps to ensure maximum clarity.
Both links are entirely irrelevant to the assertion that vectors are redrawn continuously (eating up CPU cycles) when vector images are drawn.
I think the confusion here is related to the idea that static vector images are continually redrawn when in fact that's only true for animations.
Paul
Had a nice reply for you Paul,
An adobe article about animating objects over the (static)vector background.
As this would make the bg redraw on screen and people should use cacheAsBitmap for it.
But when i was replying,browser chrashed and all was gone.
The main issue here was the loading time and i tested with a pic(100kb) exported to swf,which becomes a png inside this swf (140kb)
onloading 50% and cpu stays around 5-15% after caching.
bitmap-traced same pic at highest settings exported as swf( 561kb)
Onloading the cpu went off the charts 100% and stays around 4-12%.
Now when applying only one frame more on the timeline or transparencies
scripting _visible or _alpha=0
This would make the vector to be redrawn.
You're right if it would be just a single static vector image
But this will in 99.9% not be the case.;)
Hans
pointers http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/ar...aching_03.html
Hans I think we both agree on the following:
Vector images are not constantly redrawn, while vector animations are.
Going a bit further:
It may well be that Flash is often used for animation - more so than still images. The important thing for me is to refute the notion that flash is continually redrawing static images - it doesn't, nor is it a bandwidth hog.
Your references are valuable for animations and they are there simply because animations are repetitive tasks and inevitably processor intensive because of that. There's little correlation between vector complexity and bandwidth - having a complex vector doesn't mean excessive bandwidth usage.
Paul
Late on parade here! I believe there's a general opinion that vector images are ALWAYS smaller than bitmap images when used in Flash/Swish/Web etc and of course we know this isn't always the case. But I must agree with Paul, static vector images are drawn once and only once. Obviously if the vector is animated it needs to be redrawn every frame and this MAY be slower than using a bitmap depending on the complexity of the shape.
Regarding the size, again if the vector is static there's no problem, but tweening a vector to ever greater size can slow the rendering down, as it does for a bitmap, but a vector can become very slow at large sizes, way out of proportions the that of the bitmap. But non of this bears any relation to the initial vector size. I fact I often inport XX vectors via swf into Flash at 1000 pixels and then reduce them. This creates a far smoother image.
One thing that I've noticed over the years is that if your going to animate a complex vector then do it using a group vector. Ungrouped vectors can be very jerky.