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: Re: Resizing GIFs for HTML? From:"Wing, Michael J" <mjwing -at- INGR -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:54:31 -0600
> Third each image tag needs to call these procedures. Therefore, use
> a replace function of a text editor (such as Edit pad) and do the
> Replace <IMG
> With <IMG onmouseover="increase()" onmouseout="decrease()"
> Two usability problems: 1) this will give a single magnification, as
> opposed to a series of stepped mags; and 2) imagine the pain of a person
> moving his mouse down the page and accidentally passing over, say, three
> the smaller images on his way to clicking on a link to another page. Would
> the link even be there when he got there, or would he end up clicking on
> nothing, or worse, a different link entirely?
The example was not presented as one for "practical use", it was merely a
functional example. It's purpose is to show that all images could be
treated through a simple procedure. Tim said that it was nearly impossible.
The example was to show that it is not nearly impossible, in fact, that it
> The issue as presented had nothing to do with image quality. It was
> that he said that he could not imagine that HTML could scale the
> That's splitting hairs. He clearly mentioned that he zoomed in to get a
> more detailed view of a schematic, and that was what he couldn't imagine
> HTML doing.
The question, as I interpreted it, was that HTML could not zoom it/out on
images. I'm not splitting the hair, I'm putting focus on the hair that was
> Image quality is clearly required, as he couldn't see more
> detail if all that happened was the pixels got bigger. If you're going to
> get as literal-minded as that, then your example fails anyway, because you
> didn't use HTML, you used VBScript.
The question was, "Can HTML zoom in and out on images?" I'm not arguing
quality of images. The statement was that he (Mike) could not imagine HTML
scaling images. I merely answered and showed an example that it could. The
hair was split by expanding the focus to "hundreds of images", image
quality, and plots. I'm answering one question, "can HTML scale images?"
The answer is yes.
> Oh yeah! Where did he mention plots? I don't see it in his post!
> It's implied in "B-size schematics."
> Does VBScript work in any browser at all except IE?
I don't think so. However, since the point was brought out earlier that PDF
viewers are redistributable, it should be noted that IE is redistributable.
If I were a betting man, I would bet that I ruffled feathers by using a
VBScript example. The anti-Microsoft sentiment is too hard for some to