Re: Netiquette II + Banter [Was: Re: !! GRAPHICS QUESTION !!]

I agree with Paul.

Renie


-----Original Message-----
From: Villano, Paul <VillanoP(at)usachcs-emh1.army.mil>
To: Abhay S. Kushwaha <abhay(at)kushwaha.com>; Graphics [HWG]
<hwg-graphics(at)hwg.org>
Date: Friday, October 15, 1999 2:06 PM
Subject: RE: Netiquette II + Banter [Was: Re: !! GRAPHICS QUESTION !!]


>Abhay
>
>Are you the official owner/moderator of this list?  If you are, please
>reconsider posting such frequent and tedious notes to the entire list
>rather than the specific person.  If NOT, then please refrain from such
>condescending notes altogether.
>
>This thread is WAAAAYYYYY off-topic.  Whomever the OFFICIAL "list cop"
>is should snip it NOW.
>
>Paul
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Abhay S. Kushwaha [mailto:abhay(at)kushwaha.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 11:37 AM
>To: Graphics [HWG]
>Subject: Netiquette II + Banter [Was: Re: !! GRAPHICS QUESTION !!]
>
>
>A few "general" points first:
> o  Don't say "negative" about the person who wrote what you think
>    is wrong. Condemn the written word, not the writer.
> o  Never put your ego over your sensibilities. Some posts are
>    acknowledged publically, some are not.
> o  Don't write a mail when in bad mood.
>
>I am over-doing this thing about Netiquette this time but then again,
>I am not particularly fond of being called a "troll in concert" for no
>apparent reason. Actually my dictionary says that a "troll" is a
>"fabulous being" (from Scandinavian folklore) and I should be proud of
>being labelled so, but somehow, I have this gut feeling that "praise"
>was not in the mind of the writer when labelling me so. hehehe
>
>Most of the contents of the mail do not solicit any response except
>one which I want to share with the list -- Scott's interpretation of
>my 'dig about "over-zealous" people using too "specialized" tools...'
>and I quote:
> > As to the dig about "over-zealous" people using too
> > "specialized" tools... Are not most pieces of software
> > "specialized" to fit a certain task? You can use a word
> > processor to edit a ledger or list of names, and I've
> > seen some use a spreadsheet as a word processor, but
> > doesn't it make sense to use the appropriate tool instead?
> > I've always been under the (perhaps mistaken?) impression
> > that computers were about increasing productivity, allowing
> > people to get more done, faster and in a more agreeable
> > manner. Isn't the computer just another "specialized" tool,
> > after all?
>
>I chose to write about this since I believe that Scott might not be
>alone in not being able to diffrentiate between a "software" and a
>"tool". I was myself at par with Scott before my "enlightenment" so
>Scott -- Relax! This is not a jab at you. ;-)
>
>I equate a tool as something that adds additional functionality to a
>particular software. Eg: plug-ins. The comment was based on the
>overwhelming response on the torn-paper question and a previous
>lightening question.
>
>Imagine the scene as this:
>   A fellow asks a question of how to customise the look of
>   "bullets" in his favourite word-processor.
>
>   This solicits 30 e-mail responses. 29 of them recommend
>   companies A through Z offering a multitude of "bulleting
>   add-ons" for that particular word-processor.
>
>   That person was lucky because he got 1 post which told him
>   the options in his word-processor which enabled him to do
>   what he wanted.
>
>Get my point now?
>
>Now, time for some banter:
>
>HWG-Graphics used to be a great list and enjoyed a status of what
>HWG-Techniques is enjoying these days -- 99% useful content for an
>average subscriber. These days, I am recommended software and tools
>more than I get any type of help and this is what I do not like. Most
>people, I believe are like me and do not have unlimited resources to
>buy one separate software for every task. It might take me 10 minutes
>extra but I would prefer to achieve what I want using what I have.
>
>HWG-Graphics used to be a list where a lot of talk happened - all in
>good humour since Software-Wars were quite rampant when I joined it.
>These days, direct, stinging, public attacks seem to be the order of
>the day. I don't like this because many people will not open their
>mouth if they see every third post soliciting a flame from somebody.
>
>[abhay]
>
>PS: The worth of those words was valued to be INR 0.90
>    For the uninitiated, that approx. equals USD 2 cents. hehehe
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Scott Bowling <scottbff(at)erols.com>
>Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 1:01 AM
>
>> Captain F.M. O'Lary wrote:
>> >
>> > Abhay,
>> >
>> > A sincere and heart-felt thank you.
>> >
>> > I was really getting aggravated and irritated by:
>> >
>> > 1) The lack of anyone picking up on what I was actually trying to
>> > accomplish with this post (which you nailed!).
>> >
>> And what exactly were you trying to accomplish? And how exactly did
>that
>> long and tedious post actually answer the question put forth?
>Perhaps
>> it's best to reflect on this, as I ask again in a bit, quoting the
>> question in question.
>>
>>
>> > 2) The appearance that the only time this list is busy, is when
>people
>> > want to bitch about something.
>> >
>> Don't know about "busy" times, but the only person I've seen
>complaining
>> a lot is the respondent to which I'm responding to herewith. I've
>seen a
>> couple of questions get asked and answered, with no one complaining
>> about anything but a Fuzzy someone -- mainly about everyone else.
>Oh,
>> and the correspondent being praised also managed to make generally
>> disparaging remarks about everyone else too. Feels like a pair of
>trolls
>> in concert, but that's only a feeling. Wouldn't want to name call,
>as
>> there's plenty enough of that sort of thing without me adding to it.
>>
>>
>> > To the rest of the world:
>> >
>> > Could 'we' PRETTY PLEASE use Abhay's post as a "template" for
>answers
>> > for a while? Let's ALL get back to how-to answers that are deeper
>than
>> > 'buy product x and click filter a'.
>> >
>> Perhaps a deeper, more complete answer would have been nice, but I'd
>> like to understand just how that needlessly long post answered the
>> question, to wit:
>>
>> > >> What are some of the tips/techniques for creating this type
>> > >> of animation?
>>
>> Where in that post was it ever revealed how to create the finished
>> animation?
>>
>> I posted about my real world experience with creating animated gifs,
>and
>> I (if briefly) discussed the tools that I used to do it. I offered
>> examples of my results, including a golf-themed banner ad of
>standard
>> size, 468x60, that's 60 frames long but is still only 10k in size. I
>was
>> well remunerated for the work, and the banners are being used on
>Yahoo,
>> Career Mosaic and AOL's Digital City.
>>
>> I created them in Photoshop (but could have used anything that
>supports
>> layers and the Photoshop file format, like Paint Shop Pro), making
>each
>> frame a layer and sticking to the Web safe palette. Note that I
>never
>> created a single gif file during the process, until the final
>output,
>> nor did I have to worry about any of the technical arcana of how
>gifs
>> are physically constructed. The actual process is laborious enough
>> without having to worry about needless details. I was trying to
>create
>> quality work product in as little time as possible for my client.
>>
>> Now to really work it, I tend to create a lot of individual layers,
>one
>> for each element and position, then copy and combine the various
>element
>> layers keeping the static background separate.
>>
>> When this file is pulled into the appropriate (you know, something
>that
>> performs the necessary task, like Illustrator for vector images and
>> Photoshop for raster?) software, like ImageReady or Gif Movie Gear,
>you
>> can then deal with palette issues, keep the background for all
>frames
>> and import all the layers as frames.
>>
>> The way I construct it, I have to delete some extra frames, the ones
>of
>> the individual elements, because I like to keep the original source
>file
>> complete in case I need to go back and change something or use it as
>a
>> template -- which is almost certainly guaranteed to happen.
>>
>> Once in the gif animation software (you know, that which is required
>to
>> create the animated gif in final form?), you have to deal with
>timing
>> and optimization issues. Each frame has options for timing and the
>type
>> of transition (gets into the optimization arcana). The nice thing
>about
>> using the appropriate tool, that is, one suited to the task at hand,
>is
>> that for most purposes you don't have to worry about the arcana of
>> animated gif construction. The tool takes care of that in a moment,
>> saving time and money and allowing the artist to concentrate on the
>> creation of the art instead of reading technical treatises.
>>
>> Rather than try to explain in grueling fashion the arcana of it, I
>> suggested that you try Gif Movie Gear (free to download and test) as
>it
>> displays graphically in each frame just what it does to optimize the
>> animation. And it's more involved than mere transparency. But why
>get
>> involved in technical details that the software takes care of for
>you?
>> And why, especially, try to laboriously explain it in text, when it
>can
>> be seen graphically?
>>
>> As to the dig about "over-zealous" people using too "specialized"
>> tools... Are not most pieces of software "specialized" to fit a
>certain
>> task? You can use a word processor to edit a ledger or list of
>names,
>> and I've seen some use a spreadsheet as a word processor, but
>doesn't it
>> make sense to use the appropriate tool instead? I've always been
>under
>> the (perhaps mistaken?) impression that computers were about
>increasing
>> productivity, allowing people to get more done, faster and in a more
>> agreeable manner. Isn't the computer just another "specialized"
>tool,
>> after all?
>>
>>
>> > Again, Thank you dearly Abhay.
>> >
>> Sure thing. Thanks should go out to everyone that needlessly
>harangues
>> people just trying to use the list for its intended purpose, ie.,
>where
>> people ask graphics related questions and get answers to them.
>Something
>> long-winded, however informative (or not), that doesn't address the
>> question only serves to waste time and bandwidth.
>>
>> If a question is asked and not answered to the liking of the
>questioner,
>> then perhaps it's better that the person ask again, rephrasing and
>> explaining as necessary, rather than whine and complain... then moan
>and
>> groan about all the complaing going on. Seems somehow worthy of
>Python
>> (Monty, not the programming language ;).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Scott Bowling
>> scottbff(at)erols.com
>

HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA