RE: graphics

Julie,

actually, there are two issues that make this an unacceptable format for
the web. You got the first right on the head - File Size !

The second is more subtle but just as big if not a bigger problem: Browser
Support.

With very few exceptions, two image formats are supported by all
(graphical) browsers:

.gif
.jpg

The way "it" works is usually this:

We "all" know we get the best (Web) images from high resolution sources, so
we seek out hi-res (or "high quality") images. .eps is *usually* a good
indicator of a high resolution image as it is normally a format associated
with the (paper based) printing industry and those images MUST be a a
higher resolution than normally used on the Web in order to print at the
expected quality on commercial printing machinery . . . anyway . . . 

"we" get a image from whatever format "we" can find, make our individual
"adjustments" and then save the file in the desired format (.gif for line
art, .jpg for full tone images).

There are *several* "favorite" editors on the market to allow you to do
this, ranging from cheap to REALLY expensive. I'll trust that if you state
interest in the editor as a separate subject, a ~bunch~ of people will make
recommendations on their favorite(s).

HTH,
Fuzzy.

At 10:15 AM 12/6/00 -0600, jtrimble(at)vartec.net wrote:
>Cool.  Thanks!
>
>I would guess that this encapsulation makes the graphic bigger and therefore
>take longer to download.  Is this a correct assumption?
>
>Julie

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA