yes, VERY interesting.  i'm one of those folks still stuck with 28.8 and i 
can tell you about that sinking feeling i get when i visit a page and see 
"37 items remaining" down there in the browser's status bar.  thats ok tho, 
i KNOW i need to upgrade, i just dont have the cash right now; i just go 
get a drink or something while the page loads.  its a funny thing, when i 
first started creating web pages and custom graphics (and it wasnt that 
long ago, a couple of years  maybe) i never would have dreamed of using 
that many pics on one page because of the download wait but times do change 
dont they?  i like it!  most of the pages i visit that are heavy on the 
graphics are posted here by the folks on this list (makes sense) and i 
really enjoy visiting each of them.  btw, the ewdg flea was great and well 
worth the wait.  IMO, if we all stayed within the "acceptable" download 
time constraints our talents would be in danger of stagnating.  also, us 
28.8ers might never upgrade if really good pages dl'd at lightning speed. 
 just some thoughts.  i know a faster connection, be it 56k or cable, is at 
the top of my "must have" list!

judy

-----Original Message-----
From:	RStar [SMTP:QSilver(at)Skypoint.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, January 20, 1999 12:26 AM
To:	Tom Price; Guild Graphics
Subject:	Re: web colors puzzle - more q's

Interesting thoughts, Tom. Doesn't say anything about all of the folks
who are still stuck with 28.8 or slower access. Should they wait forever
while bloated graphics files download or should they just click stop and
visit your competitior's site?

The most powerful machine is only as fast on the web as the slowest
link  between you and the web site you are trying to visit.

Rich
Exchange Data, Inc.
---------------------

Tom Price wrote:
>
> Keith,
>
> Keep asking your questions.  That is what this list is all about.
>
> I am the owner of a Web Site design company and here is how we look at
> Web Safe Colors.
>
> Think of color TV.  By limiting your graphics to W.S. colors, you are
> effect, broadcasting in black and white, because someone is too cheap to
> spend $50 on a video card (color T.V.).
> By saving your graphics in W.S. colors you force people with decent
> computers to look at crappy, flat graphics, even though the majority of
> PC's manufactured in the last 5 years (I would argue a LARGE majority)
> can display more than 256 colors.
>
> In some cases people are simply too ignorant to change the settings.
> (Side note:  Before we started our company a couple years ago I worked
> for a huge corporation.  As a rule, ALL new machines were set to 640 x
> 480, 256 colors because the I.S. people were too lazy to change it.)
>
> In any event, if you have a .jpg on the page it will dither and look
> like s**t anyway, so why make your pages bland by sticking with W.S.
> colors (See CNET for a good example of a "flat" page or ZDTV's Call for
> Help - Leo's hair is blue!!)
>
> With this said, I will admit most of our business clients pages are
> built with W.S. colors.
>
> It's your decision.  Keep in mind, though, that if one of your
> competitors has a "fringe" machine like a Mac they may use this against
> you by showing how "bad" your graphics look to a potential client.
>
> T
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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