[Wikipedia-l] PNG format???

[Thomas R. Koll]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Ralphem at aol.com wrote:
> latest "fireworks" or whatever in order to just view a common page. Backward 
> compatibility is an important concept, and is worth keeping whenever possible.

Please shorten your lines to 75-80, for backward-compatibility (BC).
Sure BC is important, but it's 2003 and those still using hard and
software from 1999 are mad in my eyes. The world's turning and the internet
is even faster.


> Most of us are still using dialup 56K modems out in the world -- web entities that 
> load up their pages with sophisticated cutting-edge animations and hi-res 
> long-loading photos and art are virtually assured of loosing me and millions of 
> others as potential viewers. Same thing applies with your art -- coding your 
> artwork in PNG format closes out a lot of potential viewers -- put them JPEG and 
> your viewership and useability will increase.

Do you know why the WP is soo slow? It's not the few images but the heavy
user load. I think none of the developers ever thought about putting in more
images than needed.

Take a look a Amazon.com or any 
> other highly successful web business -- their pages open just as pretty in my 
> Mac as they do in the latest Pentium blazer, and they don't use advanced 
> formats. Let's keep it low tech -- PNG is an unnecessary complication for the 
> project. Thanks for listening.

Amazon.com is making money with it's website. We aren't. We are volunteers and
thus don't have any pressure from people living in 1998.
Don't forget, it's just a small logo in the upper left corner. If you don't
see it you won't miss anything.

ciao, tom

-- 
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	         Bonsai - http://bonsaiwiki.tomk32.de
   / \              http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com