Re: [OT] ideal file size of a jpeg or gif image

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"Wilco" <wilco_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
8u8ec3$mms$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au">news:8u8ec3$mms$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
>
> "Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> BsNN5.130292$bI6.5096698@news1.giganews.com">news:BsNN5.130292$bI6.5096698@news1.giganews.com...
> > "James Brook" <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > 3A07A0E9.F247AFC4@ozemail.com.au">news:3A07A0E9.F247AFC4@ozemail.com.au...
> >
> > > > Web designers mostly design for 800x600 (no higher).
> > > >
> > >
> > > My pages >>>> ARE <<<< designed for 800x600 as this is what I run my
> > > computer at. (sorry about the shouting everyone else)
> >
> > A site which displays photos at higher than 800x600 is NOT designed for
> > 800x600 - and repeating your mantra that it is designed for 800x600
won't
> > make it true.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > ]
> So how many Web sites have you designed   Dave?

4, one of which featured in Internet.AU magazine.

> The internet is a fast growing place and download speeds are increasing
with
> the new types of connections, Why should everyone else on the net design
> there websites for  the small percentage of people that will not upgrade
> there connections or hardware.

For the simple reason that not everyone CAN upgrade their hardware. Like it
or lump it, 800x600 is still the preferred resolution of a lot of people.
Until that changes, designers should (and in fact do) design around this
(purely for the selfish reason that they want the pages to be viewed, so
they design it in aformat to be viewed by the most number of people).

It is a bit like publishing in braille - I could adopt a viewpoint that I
will only publish in braille, and anyone who wants to read my literary
offerings needs to learn braille. Anyone who does not learn braille can be
damned, after all, I am perfectly entitled to publish in braille, am I not?

Of course, this would be silly, as not everyone can read braille. So
instead, I publish in a format that the majority can read, and also publish
a braille version who cannot read the normal version.

The net is actually a lot easier in this regard, since everyone can access
everything, but you only access the parts you need. As for James complaining
about server space, I cannot see what the problem is. If he can load a 10KB
thumbnail, and a 400KB large image, a35KB normal size image is not going to
make a large difference, even if you factor it over 1000's of images, as it
is less than 10% of what he is using now.

>  I suggest you get rid of your 386 and 14.4 modem, and try Cable maybe?

Pardon? I have a PIII 600, with a V.90 modem. As for connection, perhaps you
could convince Tel$tra or Sloptus to put cable into my area? We can't
convince them despite the fact that we are in the fastest growing areas of
Sydney. Good luck on this endeavour.

In the meantime, your arrogance for assuming what my hardware situation is
is almost as bad as James' for wanting me to change my settings *just* so
that I can view his pics.

> Oh and 640x480 might be good for solitaire but the internet just doesn't
cut
> it on such a poor resolution.

Who said I had such resolution?

> Wilco

Stands for "will co-operate" - so why aren't you?

Dave