Re: Screen sizes for Web pages (II)

[Geoff Hammond <gah -at- WERPLE -dot- MIRA -dot- NET -dot- AU>]

Hi,

The last message I sent came back to me with the last few paras chopped off
the end. Here they are. (apologies if you already have them and I am
cluttering your mail box.)

========================
remember any of the URLs, but use your search engine to look for 'Netscape
Pallette' (sp?) and you should come up with something - there's a lot out
there).

As a rule, you should consider using JPEG format for photographs (play
around with the level of compression) and interlaced GIFs for
non-photographic graphics, or those that require a transparent background.
This will result in the most efficient file size, which is important for
those of us with slow Internet links (most of us, I guess). Similarly,
(personal opinion follows) if you have too many big images (full screen or
approaching same), then I will probably not wait long enough to see what
the image is. Many Internet users seem to feel the same way.

Also consider how your page will look if the reader has images turned off
in their browser; many users turn off images to reduce download time; a
concept that says to me that good, simple design will win the day over lots
of really nice, but basically cute graphics.

To illustrate this, try pointing your browser at
'http://www.cruzio.com/~gooderth/virtcave.html' - a site full of beautiful
pics, but annoyingly slow to wait to load. Conversely, (at the risk of
being seen to blow my own trumpet - my apologies), take a look at
'http://werple.net.au/~gah/speleology/' and you may not grow a beard
waiting for it to download.

I'll get out of your way now.

Geoff Hammond.