Linking to graphics: why, why not?

Subject: Linking to graphics: why, why not?
From: cdavidso -at- ionline -dot- net
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:55:06 -0400

Awhile ago Mike Starr <writstar -at- wi -dot- net> wrote:

>Well, I link all my graphics.

and Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com> replied:

>Doesn't everyone?
>Except for one occasion, when I was mothballing documentation,
>and I was asked to create a single file version, just in case
>whoever took the files out of storage didn't understand links, I
>can't think of a single time that I've embedded graphics.

We're about to update a 1000-page training manual (in Word 97), and I'm
preparing for an orientation/planning session tomorrow for the three
employees (non-writers) who've volunteered to help me.

The document is in about 20 sections (separate files), and contains, on
average, at least one screen capture per page. When we originally
created it, we linked to all all of the graphics (bitmaps), because we
needed to do quite a lot of editing. The system we're documenting has
changed significantly over the past year, and this time I'm hoping we
can get away with very little editing. My question: Is it still worth
linking to the graphics? My gut tells me "yes", but I'm expecting some
resistance from the three employees I'll be working with, especially
when we get into file management and link structure.

Apart from allowing editing and refreshing of graphics in a document,
what other reasons are there for linking to graphics? File size?
Performance? Most of these screen captures will be unique, and not
reused throughout the manual.

Carolyn Davidson

cdavidso -at- ionline -dot- net

Sent with ZotMail -

Previous by Author: Re: Embeded fonts in PDF
Next by Author: Re: Terminology for disablity
Previous by Thread: Re: Document Conventions
Next by Thread: re: Linking to graphics: why, why not?

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads