chrometweaks.org

What is the best iPage web hosting for WordPress blogs?

Click Here To View All Answers...


My first question is What is the best iPage web hosting for WordPress blogs? Hoping for any answer. Another quick question... Too much coffee....

No ones in the studio....

Need a sounding board.....

OK - so, iPage site in development, that while is an interface, scrolling for additional modules will be necessary. Now, I am working with layers, but this means all code is on one page, thus resulting in quite a loading time (61 seconds) for a HTML site.....

Why layers? back to scrolling. See, wanted this in frames, but there in lies the question - I need the ENTIRE document to scroll - however, of course I can't get that for some reason..

As it stands, the Nav and the Content I want visible - at all times, then, if someone wants to scroll down, they can view a couple of sub sections. I DO NOT want to reload this page on every click, and yeah, images are preloaded, however, I still come back to the I DO NOT... so, frames are the answer - 4 rows.. BUT - 4 rows get smushed onto the screen, even with all the properties I can think of. I played with taking the 4 row frameset and putting it into a 2 row frameset, with the second frame at a height of 1 pixel, but the smush to screen still happens... So.....

Does anyone know how I can get this crap rockin' ?? Is there anyway to put framesets into framesets until the cows come home, to allow for a regular non-framed type HTML scroll bar on the left, but WITH FRAMES? the layer solution is just to costly from a usuability stand-point....

So, one route I could go, would be the nav in a row - fine, then the content below it scrolls - straightforward yes - BUT.. Here's the problem : the Nav and Content with a small message saying "scroll down for more" is present. I want to replace the content frame on mousedown you know? and showing and hiding layers is just beefing up the code - of course logically, if I replaced the Z index one would think the layers would just replace each other, but for some reason, order of precedence with layer hierarchy in the structure of the code is preventing that....

Sigh..

So, I guess the closest example to what would happen would be the 2advanced.com iPage site - NOW - with that said, I mean only those modules he has at bottom, and let me state for the record, design and structure IS NOT influenced by Mr. EJ ok?.

So, need 4 rows, but within a document that itself, scrolls down..

Or should I just lay off the coffee????.

Replies asap would be most appreciated,.

Thanks in advance...

Comments (9)

Hmm... I need to find out myself. I don't know what is the answer. I'll do some research in Google and get back to you if I discover an useful answer. You should email the people at iPage as they probably know..

Comment #1

A 61 second load time? You seriously need to rethink what your doing here. Statistically speaking: you have 8-12 seconds to get something up there for the surfer to dig into, before they close your iPage site and move on. 61 seconds? You need to re-evaluate your design. Major flaw here.....

Also, you don't want to load documents OnClick..... uhm, thats a main advantage of the web. I mean if the surfer ONLY wants to see sub section1, why load all of them?.

My suggerstion... even if you want to stick to layer, is to load a new document into the layer. Its gooing to speed up the entire experience... and thats what people want...

Comment #2

Hi studio:cmd,.

While the page looks great, the simple truth is there is too much wasted space. The entire top section is nothing but nice looking images, and while it does look nice and professional, it's just wasting space. I would take the top section and make it a splash page or make it much smaller and keep it on the same page with the content..

Do you really need the big arrow, the large face image and the very large words to the right of the face? The answer is no. They could all be combined into a much smaller image and that space used for your exiled content..

My rule of thumb is do not use more then 80 to 100 pixels of the top section (height) of a webpage for the logo and other images (that are not real content but just eye candy or banners). You have used maybe 400 pixels of height and banished the content to the basement..

Kevin..

Comment #3

Dr. Web : to quote you "a 61 second load time? You seriously need to rethink what your doing here...".

Why do you think I came here? but hey, rub it in, I won't be back for any assistance, though I really know going to boards like this, and posting beta sites is the easy way out, could have waited for one of the other designers to come in..... and get a fresh perspective there..

Kevin: to quote you "Do you really need the big arrow, the large face image and the very large words to the right of the face? The answer is no..." the answer is yes. I really an unsure as to how other people around here develop sites, but let me tell you how we do it. We back it by some serious experience, with master level certified designers, so the 100 pixel issue? nah, we'll go for the 50-70% white space. And the large arrow with wasted red? sub menu when one travels further into the site. The face, the text, the train? Virtual Value chain analysis called for it - client requested it, and it is keeping completely in line with current branding strategy..

Sorry if I come across like a dink here, but in my lack-of-sleep mind numb, I broke down and asked for help... ON FRAMES..

Not design, not loading time, not iPage site check, not opinion, just frames. Regardless, it has been worked out on our end, and I am sure all will be well..

Thank you for your reply, albeit, misguided...

Comment #4

Studio:.

Though we might be straight, and to the point, we don't mean ill towards your iPage website or yourself. Our opinions are only that... opinions..

Now: your mad that we brought up two VERY important issues. Load time, and innefficient layout..

You asked for help in making countless frames inside frames, to hide ALL content of the entire website, and load it initially. This is a bad idea. What do you want me to say? Sure here is how to nest 5 frames inside each other, and load an entire iPage website on the first go? I could do that, but then you'd be asking how to make it load faster, and why does the surfer have to wait so long to see content area3! Frames inside frames inside frames won't help a 61 second load time. In fact.... it will probably get worse! And it's not really what frames are for..

You didn't like Kevin's ideas on the layout... but regardless of what the client 'thought' was a great idea, or just how professional your designers are... THE MOST IMPORTANT CONTENT should be in the first two thirds of the page. That means the surfer gets exactly the content they came for without clicking/ scrolling/ or wading through huge images..

As I stated before, we are here to help... and there will be plenty of opinions offered here. Some you will like, some you wont. Will you find a better resource board? No, I don't think so. Its your page, do with it what youd like..

I offer my apologies, not for my opinion, but for the way it came across...

Comment #5

And the most important content IS within the first 2/3 of the page - and no, I am not mad, no one around here is....

The code for the frames is what's chunking down the loading time, there are a few facets that need to be mentioned, that aren't - regardless, we'll leave well enough alone..

The opinions did somewhat come across on a negative note, as they were never requested, and with the lack of decent sleep around here, we're always on edge. Honestly, the client's are in love with the design, and the loading time is not an issue - well, under 30 anyway... So, I guess the main area of 'irritability' on our part, was the onslaught of 'you should do this, and rethink that...' when all that was requested, was a simple answer to a simple question...

Other than that, no harm, no foul..

Hope to see, and help in the future...

Comment #6

You say you have serious experience with this stuff then you would listen to the OPINIONS that were presented here. for one you can't get scrolling when you tell the browser scrolling=no..

If you had as much experience as you say you do then you will make the page load as fast as you can and the iPage site as complex and easy to navigate as you can. so with that in mind, you can't resume until you fix your erros in your code. and the navigation won't be like you say unless you loose the gif above the navigation links..

If a frame has more content than what is presented then it has to scroll, but can't if you tell it to not scroll..

No offence if I came off wrong, but I do like the layout once you get it done...

Comment #7

And we are still on this eh?.

For the love of god, I will repeat this one last time..

LET..

IT..

GO..

The problem was corrected just a few short minutes after the intial post.....

The post was not in regards to :.

Design.

Colour.

Loading Time.

Like | Dislike content.

Placement of nav..

Pixel placement.

How to use a frameset.

Layout.

Or O P I N I O N S of A N Y kind..

It was just to state, that assistance was required in making something that couldn't scroll, scroll..

Things got heated, apologies were made where needed, and a day and a half went by. Now scoutt, you start the **** with the "if you were so experieced you would ..... " crap..

Stop it..

Stop it now..

The concept for the problem was attached, it will be quite sometime before the iPage site is completed, as the flash side needs to be created - we have used some DHTML to set our needs - there was no use of iframes (lets not forget our NN6 people) if you feel you need to, tell us how YOU would acheive this..

ALL IMAGES ARE NECESSARY..

NO LAYOUT CAN BE CHANGED..

NOTHING, THAN THE WHAT IT APPEARS AT.

Http://www.studiocmd.com/tsb/newestb/hifi_html/meh.htm.

CAN BE MODIFIED..

It is being built for NN6 and IE 5+ users, NO ONE ELSE..

So, anyone else who wishes to point fingers, give us your bandaid....

If you cannot figure out how to accomplish this, then in future, ZIP IT - before you point fingers..

We've fixed it - can you?.

And I would hope that maturity can prevail, from this point on..

Studio:cmd [active media]..

Comment #8

Sorry I didn't see the "it has been worked out on our end" part..

Yes, I am mature and I appologies for my opinion...

Comment #9

As do we....

Now, where's the love?.

Let's all be friends...

Comment #10


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.