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