Subject:
|
Re: Picture file sizes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Oct 1998 16:44:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
955 times
|
| |
|
|
Terry Keller writes:
> Show me a 640x480 200K
> jpg file, and I bet you it could be reduced down to less than 50K and
> still keep virtually the same apparent quality.
Yup.
Keep in mind that there is a strong contingent in your readership that doesn't
really care for thumbnails. I want to see your page, laid out and designed to
present the information to me in a coherent story, not just a grid of
thumbnails that I have to click on, one at a time, in a back and forth, back
and forth kind of mode.
Keep in mind also, the web is about *publishing*, (1) and a good web page
benefits from good graphic design. While one huge long page with all your
images (especially if you forget to use width and height tags) is not right,
don't have too many pages either.
While I LOVE ULV-17, the model and the site, I would have liked it better if it
had about 1/3 to 1/4 as many pages, same number of images.
That's my opinion. I KNOW others differ and you can't please everyone. Put it
in your input hopper and stir it around.
(1) and strangely enough the group name is lugnet.publish!
++Lar
======== Posted via the LUGNET discussion group web interface ========
http://www.lugnet.com/news/ Search, Read, Post, or Watch Traffic
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Picture file sizes
|
| (...) I did that (one big page) on my SpiderWalker page but the images were pretty small there (320x240). I think what Terry did is a good compromise between "one big page" and "not too small per page," seeing as some people on the net still run (...) (26 years ago, 17-Oct-98, to lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: Picture file sizes
|
| (...) I gnawed on that question for a while. Finally I opted for fewer pictures per page just to keep it cleaner, with less scrolling required. I also attempted to balance the image loading times with the average time taken to read the descriptive (...) (26 years ago, 18-Oct-98, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Picture file sizes
|
| (...) Nah, not even then. If the picture is something you want people to see, you should not subject them to a huge file. It's just not necessary to have really large jpg file sizes. Show me a 640x480 200K jpg file, and I bet you it could be reduced (...) (26 years ago, 17-Oct-98, to lugnet.publish)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
