In message <uce-473833.15244107052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net> Gregory <uce@splook.com> wrote: > In article <slrng23nll.15qa.g.kreme@cerebus.local>, > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <doraymeRidThis-A7CA7F.10592106052008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au> >> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> > In article <slrng1ufgr.15qa.g.kreme@cerebus.local>, >> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> >> >> In message <doraymeRidThis-0B1751.13012903052008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au> >> >> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >> > what would dialup users or slow broadband think?). >> >> >> >> Sorry, but I stopped worrying about dialup users 6 years ago when the last >> >> person in my family finally got ADSL. I hear there are still people on >> >> dialup, but I could not prove it. >> >> > Why did you ever worry about dialup? Do you make websites only for your >> > family? >> >> Back in 1995 worrying about dialup was sensible as the vast majority of your >> visitors were using dialup. Now-a-days, nearly none are.
> Depending on who "your" visitors actually are. About 1/6 of US users are > still at 56k or less. (Silly me. I think there's a substantial > difference between 17% and "nearly none."
Based on my webserver logs (across a varied collection of sites, most not written by me but hosted by me) it is well under 5%.
The 16-17% that have dialup are not cruising around the web. They are getting their email and going to a small handful of sites that they know, and that is all they are doing. Even the very large sites like Amazon and Ebay are obviously not catering to the dialup user as those site have more and more images.
> Would you give me $100 every time I rolled a one on a die if I gave > you $10 every time I rolled 2-6?
That does that have to do with anything? Are you saying a dialup user is just as likely to make a purchase online as a broadband user? Because if so, that is demonstrably false.
> If you wouldn't, you must also think there's a difference.) Among > industrialized nations, we're near the middle of the pack. Also, it's > not only dial-up that's an issue. Last month I switched from cable to > DSL and took a 75% speed hit in the process. There are now pages I visit > that take so long to load that Safari 3 (on 10.4) times out.
If they are timing out while you are still receiving data that is a whole different problem.
> I can work > around that by using a different browser or OS X 10.5, but the practical > reality is that I don't go to those sites as often as I used to. In that > sense, not taking slower connections into account because users with > slower connections don't come to your site is more than a bit circular.
Designing sites for the lowest common denominator merely impedes progress. I don't design for 640x480 screens, nor do I worry about 'web safe' colors because my assumption is that the vast majority of people have at least 1024x768 or better and are running with 16bit color. Likewise, the vast majority are not on dialup lines.
