Re: Web development question?

[Steve Kinney <admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/16/2012 05:25 PM, Burnie West wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 01:54 PM, Frank Gore wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Xiella
>> Harksell<xiesse@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>>> As a point of difference :)
>>>
>>> I find myself tending to save the majority of my images (in
>>> terms of
>>> developing the site - stripes, decorations, non-content stuff) as
>>> PNGs.
>> You're not the only one, the vast majority of professional web
>> designers use PNGs as a flexible way of displaying images in
>> browsers.
>> The last browser I know of that didn't support PNG files properly
>> was
>> IE6... and can we count how many years old that is?

Usage is down to something around 5% on most sites I have seen
recent statistics for.  Considering the security aspect, it's really
not doing anyone a favor to support IE6 any more...  But the moment
I stop writing alternate style sheets for it, I just "know" my next
client will be running it in Win2k and asking me why the pages are
all broken and stuff.  :o)

> There is  a minor but sound reason for using png rather than jpg
> in many of
> these cases - the fact that png is lossless. It does result in
> somewhat larger
> files, but if the specific image wants to be compressed to an
> indexed-mode jpg
> for file size reasons, a png background is I believe somewhat less
> likely to
> create artifacts - or so it seems to me.

I did not know that jpg had an indexed mode.  I knew I would be
getting some interesting feedback when I posted that answer.

I have been doing this junk for so long that I developed an
automatic habit of anti-aliasing transparent gif images "by hand" as
per my earlier comments.  And yes, it is time to abandon that and
just use png images.  Yay!

:o)

Steve



_______________________________________________
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list