proj-imim:
Re: I'll keep on asking, against all odds
Ed Howard 2000-May-23 03:02:47
Ronny,
Unfortunatley, due to bandwidth limitations, I look at things from a
different perspective. It's all about getting content before my audience in
a "sticky" time frame. Every second that my visitors have to wait beyond
8-10sec. , 10%(of those remaining) run out of patience and leave. Sad but
true - (even my family members). Since the majority of my visitors still use
56k or less, the size is still far smaller 320+- pixels wide...(2000 pixel
pano/6=viewer size with 60 degree cone of vision). To go much larger meerly
oversizes the pixels. Unless you are giving them a bigger image also. Thats
why I am not a big fan of the zoom button. If you can zoom in, the window
could have been larger or content could have been delivered faster.
Optimization....
Currently my site (soon to be updated thanks to Helmut) offers up (LP) "big"
or "fast" versions to visitors. Most choose "fast". Different window size,
different file size. Fast=1000x500 in a 200 window
Big=2048x1024 in a 350 window (unless netscape then 1400x700 in a 280 due to
LP limitations)...
All to make sure visitors get quality content in a timely fashon...go
figure.
You could give visitors the opportunity to select optimum window size when
they get to your site...
Ed Howard
Here is my take on it.
>From an architectural perspective, 60 degrees is pretty much the maximum
comfortable "cone of vision".
Therefore in order to achieve
----- Original Message -----
From: RDHoore (ProxyVista) <#removed#>
To: <#removed#>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:04 PM
Subject: I'll keep on asking, against all odds
> Dear everyone out there (and especially Helmut),
>
> All of you seem use a fixed size for the viewer window, but I really
prefer
> to use a variable size. At least, when the user maximizes the window, I
> allow the frame that contains the viewer to also increase in size. When he
> switches back to normal, my viewer will decrease in size.
>
> So, I know I've been asking since 0.3 or so, but why should the user have
to
> suffer downloading the very same panorama all over again, simply because
he
> wanted to see it a little bigger??
>
> Netscape unfortunately doesn't allow resizing the applet window on the
fly,
> but IE *does* allow it:
>
> document.ptviewer.width = document.body.clientWidth;
> document.ptviewer.height = document.body.clientHeight;
>
> (And fortunately, most Windoze people happen to use IE thanks to or due to
> MS's unfair competition.)
>
> So, wouldn't it be incredibly nifty if PTViewer would provide a function
> that we could call, to tell it to resize its panorama according to its new
> applet space?
>
> I think so. At least, I'll keep asking for it ;)
>
> Ronny D'Hoore
>