re: Linking to graphics: why, why not?

Subject: re: Linking to graphics: why, why not?
From: "Christensen, Kent" <lkchris -at- sandia -dot- gov>
To: "'TECHWR-L'" <TECHWR-L -at- LISTS -dot- RAYCOMM -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:15:50 -0600

re: Apart from allowing editing and refreshing of graphics in a document,
what other reasons are there for linking to graphics? File size?

This topic recalls terrible memories of the time I upgraded from Word 1 to
Word 2. In its wisdom, Microsoft determined the new product no longer
needed the linking capability, and the conversion process automatically
embedded any linked files. I had an approx. 30-page document with like 1.5
graphics per page and suddenly a simple file/save took 20 minutes. (Not a
typo.) Microsoft hurriedly provided an add-in to restore the linking
capability. Given this experience, I've not embedded a graphic since and
cannot therefore comment on the performance hit likely with current Word
versions, but I still wouldn't recommend embedding graphics. Future users
will have to understand Word anyway, so ...

Previous by Author: re: At what point do you include the Information Plan?
Next by Author: Re: Document Conventions
Previous by Thread: Linking to graphics: why, why not?
Next by Thread: RE: Linking to graphics: why, why not?

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads