Free Equipment Removal and Russian Santa

On my website, I advertise "Free Equipment Removal" whereby I remove obsolete equipment. Usually it is old heavy obsolete metalworking
machinery and infrastructure. Like lathes and pumps and piping and such.
http://www.machinerymoverschicago.com/chicago-machinery-removal.mpl
This time, it was something else. A nice younger gentleman called me and asked if I could remove some food equipment that he had to get rid of today.
I said sure.
http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg
Two hours later I was done.
What that stuff in the above picture, is a new Scotsman ice bag cabinet, as well as a used "Ole Hickory" natural gas meat smoker. I kept asking the Russian Santa, called Ded Moroz, for something like that smoker, for years. Ded Moroz brings presents for the New Year, so, I think, he finally heard me and got me this on Dec 30.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:49:39 -0600, Ignoramus24626

DAMN, Ig. I've been meaning to ask you this for years now:
_When_ are you going to learn how to process graphics for the web? Your images are all huge (5k x 3k pixels) and multi-megabyte. I pare a graphic like that down to 1024 largest dim and dice it to maybe 100kb. Each is done in under ten seconds, and each loads in seconds. Yours take nearly a minute on my 4mbs DSL to load. I realize that some pictures will need to be large to show details for a sale, but several smaller snippets from one would work better for you, I'm sure. Consider Photoshop or another image processing prog.

That's a great Christmas bonus you got for yourself.

Way cool. Did you spend money on wages to help pick it up, or was it solely your job? I'd consider that money well spent, either way. What's the new Scotsman going to net you on eBay (or wherever)? JES Restaurant Supply has 'em for $8,653.84 Bwahahahaha! Merry Christmas!
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.
Art is knowing which ones to keep.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did consider this very deeply.
I very strongly believe in high resolution and quality of video and images. 320 pixel videos make me cringe.
I feel that on most websites with pictures, the pictures are way too small to be useful. They are economizing on bytes that cost next to nothing, at the expense of clarity and ability to zoom in.

I think that Scotsman sells for $3,200 brand new. I will probably get 1.5k for it.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:17:50 -0600, Ignoramus24626

I'm sorry we disagree so strongly on this. In my other life as a web designer, speed of a site was of utmost importance, and still is to me and many others. You may be on 50mbs cable now, but not everyone is.

I agree. And have you seen the "videographers" out there with their phones? Most are less stable than Parkinsons afflictees. I get sick trying to watch the majority of YouTubers.

So process larger pics for your site. Simple. 500kb is much better than 4mb per pic, and you lose no relevant detail.

I no longer view all your pics (limiting to one or two) for a project because those cheap bytes take so damned long to download on my mediocre DSL connection. Crom help those on dialup, like Jim.

http://tinyurl.com/hhkjd4b Isn't this your machine? Or is this a larger cousin?
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.
Art is knowing which ones to keep.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I either skip the pix or switch to my 100kb/s cellular modem. Usually they weren't worth the bother unless I have a good answer to a problem they clarify.
-jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is different. Yours is an ice maker. Mine is just a storage bin. No refrigeration equipment.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:24:40 -0600, Ignoramus24995

Oh, darn. You coulda been rich!
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.
Art is knowing which ones to keep.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I do not know what good it is, but it sells new for 3,200.
It is an ice box and they have to be stainless and NSF certified.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    [ ... ]

    I prefer to get maximum detail -- as I often zoom in to images. Even this one, where it appears that the smoker is missing a calibrated temperature knob.
    [ ... ]

    How about a smaller image, and a link to download full resolution if desired? That could keep those with the slower downloads happy while satisfying those who prefer resolution like me as well. If I'm going to wait through a full download, I can certainly take the extra time for the smaller image to tell whether I *want* the complete image. FWIW -- my connection is a T1 (slower than some of the cable or FIOS ones, but far faster than dialup. :-)
    Or -- without using too much fancy new HTML -- is it possible to test the download speed at the start and offer smaller images if the speed is below some limit? (Ideally, this would work without javascript and other such extensions which are often disabled by the security-conscious. :-)
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | (KV4PH) Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What I'm suggesting is that he default to quicker pics, with a link to a full-sized, full-rez pic if people wish one. It's a small snippet of HTML which can be dropped in at will.

Sure. People who do that are called "web designers" and they tell their client how slowly the site loads at different speeds of Internet. Several programs used to do that for you, but it fell from grace.
The last word: Ig wants detail and doesn't care about download speed. <shrug>
--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.
Art is knowing which ones to keep.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/30/2015 7:17 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote: ...

...
But certainly it's a cost to those of us who otherwise might look at 'em, if that's your intent. If they're there only for your entertainment, so be it, but I quit at about 1/8-th of the way thru as even w/ my wireless connection it was going to be several minutes to see even one full image. There can't be that much useful info in a snapshot of a smoker, sorry.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those photos in a little less than two seconds.
The image size issue is something we wrestle with all the time in online magazines. At Fab Shop, we use an underlying PDF file, so our photos are JPEG-compressed like hell.
There are two schools of thought: One is to juggle things to try to accomodate people with slow connections. The other is, if they have a slow connection, it's not worth it to lower quality for everyone else just to accomodate the others. If your intended readers are serious businesspeople, they almost certainly have the fastest connection that they can get. Surveys in the publishing business have indicated this.
Iggy's photos look like they're straight out of the camera (16 MP) and highest-quality JPEG, at around 5 MB, which is typical for the very slight JPEG compression that most cameras apply internally. Ig, you can squash the file size down a lot by using a medium-quality JPEG compression in Photoshop, GIMP, or whatever you use,, while leaving the image size alone. As it is, I can count the veins in the maple leaves on the ground. That's a little more than you need. <g> You really have to stomp on photos like that with lower-quality JPEG settings before you notice it.
FWIW, for full-width magazine spreads, I typically run the JPEGS at around 3,000 - 4,000 pixel width, with compression that results in around 1.5 MB file size. They don't look much different than the results that then come out of the PDF squeeze machine, which are much smaller, and they have plenty of sharpness and detail.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/31/2015 10:45 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: ...

...
I guess that's fine for those who have access to such bandwidth; not all do (no matter what the cost might be).
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again, if it's not business, it's better to accomodate slow connections.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/31/2015 11:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: ...

Trust me, after being limited to dialup until roughly 18 mo ago or so, this is comparatively blazing...
--




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31/12/15 17:44, Ed Huntress wrote:

I look at Iggy's pictures occasionally and find them invariably slow to load, I had assumed it was his server but not looked at the size of the images. My ADSL is around 5Mbps so don't find many things a problem but it is getting worse as web designers add more "features", scripting is getting a pain with many sites and the NoScript add on is useful for that . When I did my website most people had dial-up so the first images people see are a sensible size for reasonably quick loading on a dial-up connection then if the viewer wants to see more they can click the image and get a larger version in a new window. I'm sure Iggy could do that easily and automate it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

This is one of the ongoing debates among commercial companies on the Web, and there is a lot to discuss. Suffice to say that most people prefer the "richer" websites, and that 44 US states now have *average* broadband speeds above 10 Mbps download.
A couple of days ago, NYC opened its first two free wifi kiosks, with gigabit wifi, in my son's neighborhood. They're installing 7,500 more. The state of NY is investing $500 million, with another $500 million provided by the private sector, to raise minimum download speeds to 100 Mbps throughout the state by 2019.
Where I live, in NJ, the average is above 15 Mbps. The same is true for the other mid-Atlantic seaboard states, plus Washington and Utah. My service is 60 Mbps; for a few bucks more per month, I could have 100.
That's where most of the customers are. A lot of RCM members live outside of metro areas, but they aren't typical of the majority of US users.
So, again, if you're a business and you're deciding how much of a load to put on your website, you have to consider who your customers are and how much it takes to stand out and keep them coming back. My business -- online publishing -- wrestles with it all the time. A site like Iggy's, which doesn't rely on online interactivity, big videos or 3D PDFs, can be really compact and fast -- except for his big photos. But sites in many visually and technically competitive businesses keep reaching for more.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:42:06 -0500, Ed Huntress

In today's world there is no excuse for anyone to make customers or visitors to your site wait for the download of large bloated pictures. Put the compressed photos online, with a link to "high resolution view available - click here" ifyou think someone may want to count the pores on your nose, or the rivets on the golden gate bridge.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31/12/15 21:42, Ed Huntress wrote:

Maybe I'm atypical but I find websites with lots of visual gimmickry off putting as it gets in the way of finding the information I want. Unless I know the information is on the site I will frequently go elsewhere for it and the OTT site gets ignored. One welding supplier site I had to put up with, the catalogue had simulated page turning which probably go the bods in marketing off but was a waste of time while looking at their products IMO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

As I said earlier, this can become a lengthy discussion. <g> The issues here are the same ones that have been characteristic of hypertext since before there was a Web. I was involved with Cognetics' HyperTIES hypertext software for training programs back in the '80s, and the very same issues kept coming up.
There are several reasons and objectives one may have in using any kind of hypertext. You may be searching for something specific. That requires an effective search engine. You may want to browse a product category. That requires moderate search capability combined with excellent navigation. Or you may want to browse and read. That requires good navigation and good reading, whether it's an HTML page, a flip book (the "simulated page turning" that you mentioned), or links to PDFs or other self-contained text/graphic files.
In your case, you wanted effective search and you got a flip book. That's not very thoughtful Web design. A lot of Web designers do a poor job of thinking about how users are going to use it. They put in the geejaws without thinking.
The really hard part is navigation. That has been a problem since the late '60s, when the US Air Force was developing Xanadu for training and maintenance support. The early hypertext implementations, like HyperCard and HyperTIES, focused on that and tried to distinguish themselves by having superior navigation. When hypertext moved to the Web, no navigation standard was developed or carried over, and the quality of navigation is all over the map -- mostly poor. It's mostly a random system of hyperlinks, with little or no way to know how all of the information is organized.
Add to that the fact that most of the better, newer interactive hypertext capabilities require high-speed connections, and the situation is ripe for complaints from anyone who doesn't have at least, say, 10 Mbps download speeds. As we discussed, that's the speed that the majority of people in the US have. "High-speed" is defined as 25 Mbps by most organizations, and that's more or less the cost of admission for businesses that are using the Web these days.
So you're not an atypical user, in the sense that you wanted search and you got flip-book. That's a mistake by the Web developer. But your speeds may be atypically low. Suck it up -- nobody is developing anything for speeds of less than 10 Mbps these days.
On our site (www.fsmdirect.com) our focus is on browse-and-read, but we have search that will take you to quick-loading HTML articles of article subjects, product names, and so on. We keep working to improve it. Our basic feature is a flip book, which gives you embedded features like self-contained videos and, starting in about a week, interactive 3D Acrobat files. That's appropriate for a magazine but definitely NOT appropriate for a catalog, as you experienced.
I suspect that many of our features are atrocious on slow connections, and maybe unuseable with dial-up. We don't get complaints about it because our readers are mostly from businesses that have high-speed.
Iggy's situation is kind of unique. I can see his point that the high-res photos are important to him. He could save some download time by using more JPEG compression but the thumbnail/big-file combination is good, too.
There's no way around it, though: Unless you have a high-speed Internet connection, you're going to keep growing more frustrated over time, as Web design assumes that you have high speed.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.