You know the one, up top, that takes 15 seconds to load (on high speed wireless). It even reloads two or three times when it ought to be cached. There's like 20 pics in that menu. I thought the text links worked fine, and even looked better. Please fix this soon. Doug

ditto, it takes me 15seconds on average to load that pile. Then the rest of the page loads fast after the 15seconds that it takes to load the menu

Well I have to say I'm on dial-up and this just isn't a problem. I feel left out now! Mick :)

You feel left out? :) Well, you could post praise in the thread that is giving kudos to the new and improved menu bar, instead of hanging out in the gripers thread. :)

People have been complaining about this problem for weeks now. bonni

Ay, dios mio! This is the third thread about the problem, and it's still there. That menu bar is one frog that nobody wants to kiss 8-)

This is the third thread about the problem, and it's still there. Third? Hmm, I thought it was the fourth... bonni

Attached Link: settings screenshot

Just checked, I got the same setting.

Weird. Other than increasing how much disk space my temp cache can take up, that's the only setting I have changed. (and the disk space option shouldn't matter) AS

ok.... this is getting ridiculous.... the settings in the screen capture and resetting the cache do NOTHING to help this situation for those who tried this already - BEFORE the helpful suggestions. is it possible that having this many people COMPLAIN about the problem might give the complaints SOME validity???? so, rather than suggesting a "user error," try and come up with a fix, please. stop exhibiting this tired, stubborn, not-invented-here, cliched computer-geek attitude and TRY to apply the more professional, adult business skills of addressing customer complaints to this situation....

I have the same setting, as well, although I will note that it has improved slightly since I switched from Netscape 7.1 to Firefox. BUT... While I appreciate that changing one's browser settings is an okay "workaround" in the short term, telling users to change their browser settings isn't exactly the best approach to professional web design. ;-) bonni

Boy, Spook took the words right out of my mouth. I have been having a slow load on that menu as well. I found this thread and thought it was strange that I was being told to alter my browser just to get a faster load on this site. Its obvious a lot are having issues with this menu. Its not that pretty.. get rid of it and put back simple text.

That's just the seeting I use to get a faster response on ALL sites, not just this one, lol. I think it is the default IE setting anyway. AS

Why does RR care so much about keeping a basic blue button behind the text? This site is full of artwork, I doubt anyone stops to catch their breath over the amazing blue button on top of the page. I vote to return to text links too :)

What if we looked at this from the site's point of view? They are now serving 27 graphics per person per page. Let's assume that 1/2 the people that are currently online are able to cache the graphics. Heck, let's assume 75% of the people. Right now, there are 1,600 people online (rounded). 75% of 1,600 is 1,200. That means that 400 people are not caching these 27 graphics, which means that the site has to re-serve the graphics every time they load a page. Now, how big are those graphics? Each one looks to be less than 1k. Let's assume the total is 25k. This means that 400 people, per page, are having to reload these graphics. This means that 10,000k (or 10M) of bandwidth traffic is being used just to serve these graphics. Is this really more effecient than simple, text links? Obviously, Renderosity must have bandwidth to spare, if they want to use it up by serving these graphics.

The reason they've given is because the previous text links didn't work properly in NS4.x. bonni

well, bonni, i don't think that the response was adequate - not in the least. (and neither do you, i believe.) this website continues NOT to load properly - consistently and annoyingly despite the best efforts of the customers that have contributed to these threads. i am a paying customer - paying fees for a mailbox i don't use and for the privilege of uploading more than one image in a day. i am also a purchaser of products from the marketplace. and i believe not only that i have the right to lodge this complaint; i believe that i am ENTITLED to a proper, satisfactory response from the staff, also. furthermore, i believe that EVERYONE who has contributed to all of these threads with the same issue deserve the same: a proper, satisfactory response. ONCE AGAIN, i would like to call upon the staff of this website to respond to the issues that have been raised.

well, bonni, i don't think that the response was adequate - not in the least. (and neither do you, i believe.) Correct. I'm of the opinion that: 1) graphical text is almost never a good idea anyway (that's Web Design 101 right there) 2) there are means and ways of making things work in NS4.x that don't involve slowing the site down for everyone else 3) this is a pressing issue since it keeps coming up again and again and has for weeks and deserves some immediate attention I have some other opinions as to the "professionalism" of the web design as it gets implemented around here, but as I don't feel like going off on a rant at the moment, I'll just keep that to myself for the moment. ;-) bonni

Hi guys, I apologize for the lack of response to this post. Some good points have been brought up. This is on the table for discussion in our weekly admin meeting. FYI, Clint

Thanks, Clint. I know from posts you've made elsewhere that you're looking into this, even though it's not exactly your department. ;-) bonni

I appreciate it, Clint. As you can see, we are annoyed ;-) Doug

Thank you, Clint. It's much appreciated for sure!

it's 0207 DST. and the loading behaviour has changed markedly - for the better! are you tweaking? thank you for responding, clint. my apologies for becoming testy in these threads. however, i wasn't aware that you had responded in others. and the frustration of the bizarre loading behaviour was becoming too much. whatever you and the programmers have tweaked in the last 2 hours seems to have helped - from what i can observe.... and if you haven't touched the code or servers, then i'm at a loss to explain why the site's performance has changed.

We discussed this issue in our admin meeting this morning, taking into consideration all of the testing that has been done with numerous browsers on different operating systems and platforms as well as looking at server logs to see if the new navigation has any significant impact on bandwidth We have consistently found that the navigation works as expected and that bandwidth is not a problem, nor has it significantly increased due to the images most commonly being cached rather than downloaded with each page visit. The purpose of the navigation change was necessary for two reasons. 1.) Being that this is an art site, there are expectations placed upon us to have the site utilize a more graphical interface rather than remaining plain and simple. 2.) We are trying to cater to the broadest group of people possible - which means not excluding the large groups of members that use older browser versions. With all of these issues taken into consideration, we have decided to continue with the navigation as it is for the time being.

"1.) Being that this is an art site, there are expectations placed upon us to have the site utilize a more graphical interface rather than remaining plain and simple." Yes, but first and foremost, this is a WEBSITE. Usability issues have to come before making it "pretty". "Plain and simple" text links may be "boring", but they are much faster than 27 graphics. Heck, if you want a more graphical interface, why not get it over with and make the site one big Flash animation? You can get a much slicker UI that way.

tutone and the rest, are you infact listening to your members?

it seems not at all.
as to the older browsers I suggest you take a look at offical figures on browser usage - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3886861.stm figures from he US net watchdog, the Computer Emergency Reponse Center (Cert), and the internet security monitor, the Internet Storm Center

Message edited on: 07/13/2004 14:07

"1.) Being that this is an art site, there are expectations placed upon us to have the site utilize a more graphical interface rather than remaining plain and simple." In that case, I can send you to scores of tacky websites with anim gifs... Don't stop now, go the whole 10 yards!

"1.) Being that this is an art site, there are expectations placed upon us to have the site utilize a more graphical interface rather than remaining plain and simple."

Lol, that in defense of a plain and simple, looks like text, design.

shakes head

Amazing...I can't believe you guys would keep a graphic ("for the time being") that is slowing down the site for so many, when as a graphic it looks like crap and quite cheesy. I can't see it as attracting people. If anything, it will turn away loyal members and also those new people who visit the site and see how slow it loads. What a joke. I rarely get upset about this site, but this really pisses me off. Doug

Amen to that, rd.

Translation: We don't care if it's a problem for you. We refuse to investigate other options. We think it looks pretty and all of you having problems can go to hell. bonni

In theory, at least, they should be able to provide the same effect using a table (like they are) with graphics for the border edges only (4 graphics; the top border is already a single image: nav_mini_r1_c1.jpg, 468x11 pixels, 686 bytes) and add the Light Slate Grey as a background color for the table with text links.

Do the "designers" (and I use that term loosely; perhaps "codemonkey" is better) of this site honestly believe that a poorly designed graphical menu with multiple images is the ONLY way to make the menu readable/usable in NS4.x? That can't be right, can it? Can this site really have web techs who honestly do NOT know how to make a text menu work properly in NS4.x?! bonni

Simple nbsp added into an empty cell fixes the problem with tables and NS 4. And why do you need empty cells anyway? It's two rows by five columns. Any padding can be set in HTML, if you're worried about that. No need for rowspans or colspans. No need for borders. You can set the background for the whole table if you want that drop shadow. What's the problem anyway? BTW, putting an image to simulate Courier is NOT good. I'd understand if it was a font that's not readily available on every computer.

Ah. Great to have an answer from the admins or bosses or whoever. But from a dial-up user who is not in a 3rd world country but doesn't have access to cable/dsl but have managed to spend a considerable amount of money in your marketplace, a comment or two... Art site is fine...I never realized that there were "expectations" of Renderosity that related to 10 small links at the top of the page. If you want to professionalize this art site, maybe you should assist the marketplace sellers who are not native English speakers to spell their banners and advertisements correctly, among other things. What about access and usability and basic design? And I'd like to know how many people who visit here and who spend money in the marketplace are on non-wideband/cable/etc connections...

You know, I do not get upset that the site is slower than other sites,, always has been. However what you have done for myself and apparently many others is make the site useless. I can no longer enjoy the galleries, I can no longer browse the market place. What I have in my cart now is all I will be buying from Render, not because I am throwing a hissy fit, not because I do not want to shop.. simply because I do not have the time to sift through a large market place looking for an item when each page now takes forever to load in. Your site , you can certainly do what you like with it, but my goodness Renderosity must be doing well if it can afford to through out customers over a simple issue that is so easy to overcome.

well that was the fastest response to a complaint on a web site I have ever had! Was so frustrated trying to look at the galleries this AM I posted the above .. hit the post button and then went to my own gallery .. the menu loaded in in a flash??? You fixed it? Tell me you are not just teasing? g.. If you have really fixed it for good.. THANK YOU!!

** We are trying to cater to the broadest group of people possible** The broadest group??!! I pretty well think that the broadest group is using newer browsers....ya sure ya aint catering to the heaviest checkbooks?

"1.) Being that this is an art site, there are expectations placed upon us to have the site utilize a more graphical interface rather than remaining plain and simple." ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is funny sh*t! You are talking about a graphic that looks like it was uploded to the Beginners gallery. the graphic menu is TEXT you idiots! Why not just use text? (as Erlik pointed out, its not even a custom font) The little drop shadow isn't that great. And as a few above have stated, it would be so easy to get the same look using a table with a BG graphic for your little drop shadow. I have heard it all.. this guy is in the wrong business, he should be a political media spokesperson. You sure know how to Spin! Thanks for the laugh Tutone... you rock... :-

i have deleted my last response to the message posted by tutone1234 on behalf of renderosity. it was inflammatory.

however, the responses by members to renderosity's latest answer express valid concerns and options. and i urge the staff of this website to re-consider their decision - which is grounded neither on good website design principles nor on good business practices.

i ask: at what point is it ever reasonable for businesses to know "better" than their customers? that is what has been expressed by renderosity in this thread. and renderosity is wrong.

Message edited on: 07/14/2004 15:24

thank you for your kind words, rdonovan. i no longer believe that there will be an acceptable response from renderosity in this matter. and i am really disappointed.

renderosity's clear inability to address valid client concerns - in just this one case - indicates that bondware would not be a suitable vendor to large international organisations.

on a personal level, poser is a hobby. i'll continue to use whatever website suits my needs and interest as i see fit.

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 15:11

Ok, no problem that you are going to keep it. But FIX it! It doesn't need to be 27 images. And those are my cache settings, and the menu continues to reload time after time. Why not just have the menu be ONE image, with the text links on top of it? That would solve this problem.

I wanted to personally express my apologies if we have given the impression that we are not listening. That is honestly not our intent. Nor is it typical, as most of you know. We try to take care of our members very quickly.

All of your concerns and suggestions really have been read and recognized because we do value your input.

It was due to member input the navigation box was put up in the first place. We received numerous requests from members who couldn't find the galleries, contests, tutorials, etc. In order to assist people in finding their way around the site, we added the box. (That, and yes...it did look pretty cool compared to having plain text.)

Then, we heard there were problems with certain browsers and we adjusted the graphic to address those concerns. When we encountered different concerns after that change, again we investigated and worked to find a solution. We did extensive testing with many browers and operating systems. We wanted to determine if there was a solution, or if it should go.

We would have removed the box if it was causing extreme server load, or we found that the download times were prohibitive to members coming to the site.

Yes, the inital download of the box is quite different than we're used to. But, after that it is cached*, unless you close the browser. The images do not continue to reload while surfing the site.

The box is serving the purpose it was intended for, which is helping members find their way around.

I hear and understand your frustration and displeasure over the change. We did reconsider, and the team came to the conclusion that it serves a necessary purpose for many members.

Best regards,
LillianH
Renderosity Marketing & Promotions

*Here are the cache settings in case anyone needs them:

• In IE 6 you go to the "general tab>Temporary Internet files>Settings>Check for newer versions of stored pages
• In NSC 4.7X Edit>Preferences>Advanced>Cache (Edited to correct grammar)

Yes, it's mostly a problem with opening a new window. But when I have an image comment ebot, or a forum reply ebot in my mailbox, the link will open in a new window, so every single time I have to watch that menu load. If I leave the site and come back later, I will have to watch the menu load.

I haven't seen this answered by the admins: Why does the menu need 27 (or however many) pics in it?? Make it ONE image and you'd have the newbies and the oldies alike happy.

I forgot to add: When I have, say, 10 comment notices in my mailbox, from 10 different images, this means I will have to wait for that menu to load 10 times. Does Renderosity consdider this acceptable?

Doug

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 18:50

Renderosity seems entirely and wholly unwilling to accept the word of the many members who report that the menu loads EVERY TIME, regardless of settings. There have been weeks and weeks of people saying their settings are precisely those that are recommended and yet they still have the multiple images loading every single time. The argument on the R'sity side seems to be, "You're doing something wrong," and "It works for us!" and "Hey, it's not taxing OUR server, it must be something you're not doing right!" Basically, a lot of people are still having issues with this, and several perfectly good suggestions have been put forth as to how the problem could be better managed, but it's all been pushed aside without exploration. My guess is that a class of first year web design students could figure out something that would work better than 27 separate images that are causing problems for a significant number of people, and they wouldn't have to fall back on "It's not our problem, it's yours!" Trust me, I definitely understand the push-me-pull-me aspect of making design decisions, but in this case, I don't see a lot of progress being made. "We're doing it like this, tough if it's causing you problems," is NOT an adequate answer. bonni

also, please convey to your programmers that the process they are using to test compatability and performance is flawed. though they may have tried to "simulate" specific environments, the quality and quantity of complaint indicates that something is very wrong.

i attach a screen capture made a few minutes ago. this "final" screen was the result of approximately 45 secs on a cable modem attached to my 2.8 MHz, p4. the image is a result i receive for practically every other web page that loads at this time of day - whether individual image OR gallery. (and my browser settings are as suggested.)

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 21:44

"Yes, the inital download of the box is quite different than we're used to. But, after that it is cached*, unless you close the browser"
erm..

one of the points of caching is, it's still there if you close the browser.....plus, the images reload if you switch from the forums to the marketplace so infact... THEY ARE NOT CACHING.

I to have the settings you suggest.. and it's damn slow here as well.

" I wanted to personally express my apologies if we have given the impression that we are not listening. That is honestly not our intent. Nor is it typical, as most of you know. We try to take care of our members very quickly."

you could have fooled us!
have a large dose of cynical laughter removed once calmed down

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 22:03

It's hopeless... they dont care no matter how much doublespeak they use to say they do. We will just have to deal with it or find other sites...

lillianh: i appreciate your taking the time to respond to this thread. please understand that this is NOT "personal." Ditto. Just wanted to make that clear. :-) bonni