TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: web graphics From:Matt Ion <soundy -at- ROGERS -dot- WAVE -dot- CA> Date:Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:29:50 -0800
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:40:30 -0400, Allyson C. Harris wrote:
>What are people's opinions on the better graphics package to create Web
>graphics -- Adobe or Corel?
I use neither (mainly - or at least partially - because neither supports
me). In this case, the "better" one is the one that YOU prefer for the
results YOU need.
>We already use Corel products at our company, but we can switch to Adobe if
>we find a compelling need to do so.
Web graphics isn't a "compelling" need to switch if you're happy with
what you have now.
>I've heard that Adobe products are the standard for Web design, but one
>graphic artist who uses both thinks that Corel is the better deal because
>it can do nearly everything that Adobe products can but costs a lot less.
What does "standard" mean? "Standard" according to whom?
>Other opinions? And does anyone know specific techniques that Adobe
>products can handle regarding the Web, that Corel cannot? Thanks in advance
>for any input!
WWW graphics are 99.99% comprised of GIF and JPG formats (you could use
BMPs if you wanted, I suppose, but the people waiting for your pages to
download wouldn't be terribly impressed). Both have been around since
long before the WWW; neither has any special features that necessitate an
overly expensive graphics package. In fact, almost every shareware and
freeware graphics package on nearly every platform in use today supports
The only Web-specific considerations are for interlaced, animated and
transparent GIFs (okay, there's also "progressive JPEG" but that's rarely
used and poorly supported in most browsers, so it's a non-issue), and the
majority of popular graphics packages support those as well. There are
even products especially designed for WWW graphics, such as the shareware
product GIF Construction Set (16-bit Windows, so it will run on a LOT of
The only other factors, AFAIK, are support for PNG (the new Portable
Network Graphics format), and features to ease design of seamless tiles
(for backgrounds, etc. - I think Illustrator 6 may have plugins available
to aid in this, but I could be wrong). PNG support may or may not be an
issue, as it's only supported in the newest browsers and as yet hasn't
really caught on despite its web-specific design features. The ability
to easily create seamless tiles may be even less of an issue depending on
how extensively you REALLY NEED to use them in your page designs.
So in short: no, there are no compelling reasons to dump Corel products,
which you seem comfortable with, for more expensive Adobe products, if
your main concern is WWW graphics.
Your friend and mine,
<insert standard disclaimer here>
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million
typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.
"Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."