Web site critique

On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:40:53 -0500, kchayka <usenet (AT) c-net (DOT) us> wrote:

Steve Sundberg wrote:

And why use Flash for a simple slide show?
As an alternative, a properly optimized GIF animation
would get the same job done for fewer bytes.

I doubt it. Gif is not an appropriate format for photos. An animated gif
would probably be many times larger than a properly compressed Flash
movie, at least for photographic content.

Now, if they were line drawings instead, it would be another matter.

Yes, you're correct -- although I will sometimes convert JPGs to GIF
in order to achieve the dithered effect. The solution to the large SWF
file size has to involve using properly optimized JPG or PNG images.
Given the few images used in this particular Flash file, there
shouldn't be any need for the SWF to be larger than 50k-75k.

Gazza wrote:

You need to read the specs for XHTML Media Types. It clearly says that
XHTML1.1 SHOULD use application/xhtml+xml as it's mime type.

I can't find that stated in the w3.org XHTML 1.1 specs.

XHTML 1.0 says,

XHTML Documents [snip] may be labeled with the Internet Media Type
"text/html" [RFC2854], as they are compatible with most HTML browsers.
Those documents [snip] may also be labeled with the Internet Media Type
"application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236].

Further, the changes from XHTML 1.0 to 1.1
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html> doesn't declare a change in
mime-type recommendations.

--
Ben M.

Steve Sundberg wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:40:53 -0500, kchayka <usenet (AT) c-net (DOT) us> wrote:


Steve Sundberg wrote:

And why use Flash for a simple slide show?
As an alternative, a properly optimized GIF animation
would get the same job done for fewer bytes.

I doubt it. Gif is not an appropriate format for photos. An animated gif
would probably be many times larger than a properly compressed Flash
movie, at least for photographic content.

Now, if they were line drawings instead, it would be another matter.


Yes, you're correct -- although I will sometimes convert JPGs to GIF
in order to achieve the dithered effect. The solution to the large SWF
file size has to involve using properly optimized JPG or PNG images.
Given the few images used in this particular Flash file, there
shouldn't be any need for the SWF to be larger than 50k-75k.

The SWF file is only 9kb in size. The images are external to the SWF
file, and are loaded with help from an (also external) XML file that
acts as a control to ID the images.

The main culprit are the photos themselves. They need to be compressed
more, except I can’t stand the dithering. Damn JPEG. If only Flash could
properly digest PNG. :-(

...Geshel
--
************************************************** ********************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
************************************************** ********************

Neo Geshel wrote:

The main culprit are the photos themselves. They need to be compressed
more, except I can’t stand the dithering. Damn JPEG.

There's something seriously wrong with your application if you're
getting dithering. Dithering is only supposed to be performed when you
reduce the number of colours in the image (don't do this).

If only Flash could properly digest PNG. :-(

Since you're compressing photo-realistic images, you do not want PNG
unless you want lossless compression (perfect quality over filesize).

TTFN,
--
Ben M.

Neo Geshel wrote:

The main culprit are the photos themselves. They need to be compressed
more, except I can’t stand the dithering. Damn JPEG. If only Flash could
properly digest PNG. :-(

Import the pngs into a swf then dynamically load the swf(s) in your
slide show flash. When ever we need quality images (or transparency) we
do this.

--
-=tn=-

Neo Geshel wrote:

The main culprit are the photos themselves. They need to be compressed
more, except I can’t stand the dithering. Damn JPEG. If only Flash could
properly digest PNG. :-(

Import the pngs into a swf then dynamically load the swf(s) in your
slide show flash. When ever we need quality images (or transparency) we
do this.

--
-=tn=-

Neo Geshel wrote:

The main culprit are the photos themselves. They need to be compressed
more, except I can’t stand the dithering. Damn JPEG. If only Flash could
properly digest PNG. :-(

Import the pngs into a swf then dynamically load the swf(s) in your
slide show flash. When ever we need quality images (or transparency) we
do this.

--
-=tn=-

Travis Newbury wrote:

Neo Geshel wrote:

The main culprit are the photos themselves. They need to be compressed
more, except I can�t stand the dithering. Damn JPEG. If only Flash
could properly digest PNG. :-(


Import the pngs into a swf then dynamically load the swf(s) in your
slide show flash. When ever we need quality images (or transparency) we
do this.

Hmmm... three identical posts in under 30 seconds... is Thunderbird

stuttering on you? :-)

...Geshel
--
************************************************** ********************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
************************************************** ********************

Ben Measures wrote:

Neo Geshel wrote:

The main culprit are the photos themselves. They need to be compressed
more, except I can�t stand the dithering. Damn JPEG.

There's something seriously wrong with your application if you're
getting dithering. Dithering is only supposed to be performed when you
reduce the number of colours in the image (don't do this).

If only Flash could properly digest PNG. :-(

Since you're compressing photo-realistic images, you do not want PNG
unless you want lossless compression (perfect quality over filesize).

TTFN,
Sorry, I meant artifacts, not dithering. I hate artifacts. I hate

lowering the image quality just to get an improvement in file size. I
hate dithering, too, but I haven’t created a GIF in almost two years...

...Geshel
--
************************************************** ********************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
************************************************** ********************

Neo Geshel wrote:

Sorry, I meant artifacts, not dithering. I hate artifacts. I hate
lowering the image quality just to get an improvement in file size. I
hate dithering, too, but I haven’t created a GIF in almost two years...

Sometimes, if I need a JPEG to be a certain filesize but can't stand the
quality, a light blurring before saving works wonders (it's certainly
much better than the alternative). Try it, you may be pleased with the
results.

Hth,
--
Ben M.