mgetty --> Web-Page

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Simone Demmel wrote:

[...]
> So you can manualy change your Application-List from your Browser to
> choose whatever program you want to show your g3-Files (Plugins...), or
> use a java-Applet. I think the appet is easier for many people, because they
> don't have to look around if there is a g3-viever.

Yes, a java-applet would be nice.
 
> > You should be able to send HTML with an IMG tag that specifies the viewing
> > size (and resizability option?) regardless of the resolution of the actual
> > source, which will give you scaling on the client.  And the client's cache
> > will address re-fetch issues.
> 
> The idea behind this is different:
> a thumnail picture has perhaps 5K
> a normal half-sized g3 has about 20-50k
> a full size picture has 100-800k

Compared to the space taken by full-size images, storing at thumbnail and
maybe a 640-pixel-wide size really shouldn't eat all that much space.  As
you know, disk space is cheap compared to processor or bandwidth... this
approach eliminates the need for the client to have a helper app or the need
for a java viewer.

> If you work with scaling, you have to send 100-800k to the client, because
> you also want to be able to read this picture, if the scale is 100%. That
> takes a lot of time and money, if you are far away fom home and only wants
> to view the last 3 faxws from this night - you will think about it twice.

I was offering a method of easy implementation that did not require storing
the image on the server in multiple sizes, nor resizing at the server
on-the-fly.  We're storing common sizes on disk and serving other sizes
on-the-fly as required.
 
> (JPG is no good format, because faxes mostly have exact lines. JPG always
> smoothes these lines.)
> 
> If you only creates small pics, to change the size in your browser doesn't
> give you more information for thew picture. (make the test: use an small
> image, like those in /image with about 8 pixel-size and try to view them
> with width="450" height="600")

Certainly, but downsizing the thing isn't going to have that same effect.
 
> I hope, you understand the point.

Yes... complex issues, with different "correct" answers depending on
a person's specific priorities.

Randy

-----
Uptime Computer Services
Workflow Automation Solutions
      for Office and Internet