Re: 256 web page

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997
>From: P3D Gregory J. Wageman writes:
>....................
>I was hoping that people would give a little thought to my request and
>not immediately give this kind of cliche, elistist response.  I should
>have known better.  Having fewer images per page would in no way hurt
>those with thousands or millions of colors available.  In fact, even
>the 16-bit graphics users could likely benefit somewhat, particularly
>with pictures of "natural" images (skin tones and such).

*****  I don't consider Ron's response to have been *elitist*. Higher color
choices are a fact of life that is better for everyone and it isn't
particularly difficult to accomplish. I sympathize with an employee stuck at
an outdated workstation, but which happens to have a very hi-tech access to
the internet. Fewer images per page is a possibility and I frequently use
only ONE image per page. If that helps I can make more use of it. I however
cannot condone the idea of powering something hi-tech with outdated
technology. Why not buy a Mazeratti and have a bicycle installed as it's
power source? It's a silly notion. Your employers are being ripped off by
overpriced hi-tech that isn't up to standards. The suppliers get away with
it because their customers aren't screaming yet. Eventually it will change
and it might take massive indication of dissatisfaction on the part of
industrial customers. Thankfully not every company is so limited.

>
>I tried to make it clear that I'm talking about equipment that I don't
>own (my employer does) and thus can't upgrade.  This has absolutely
>nothing to do with how "serious" *I* am about graphics.  Here in Silicon
>Valley, a large number of us take advantage of our employers' high-speed
>Internet connections (often T1 or better), vs. the 28.8K modem we are
>likely to have at home, to do our Web browsing.  I'm currently at a
>company with literally a thousand 8-bit Suns on desktops.  Every one
>of these is a potential viewer of your Web pages.  I know there are
>other similar companies here in the Valley and elsewhere.  You are
>potentially excluding all such users from properly viewing your pages.

****  It's absurd to have T1 or better hooked up to 8 bit color systems. One
wants to ask *why?!!* For the prices they pay for Sun quality an upgrade on
color should be expected at no further cost. If enough customers complained,
that's exactly what would happen. It should be extremely embarassing to Sun
that they who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making the claim to
*Power the Internet* are still back in the dark ages with their workstation
systems. Your employers can afford expensive modems and high capacity
connection lines but not full color? Another absurdity. Spending
multithousands for things they see as necessary and spending only a nickle
on the display aspects as if it isn't important!  I accept that it is
current reality, but one that needs changed and the direction is rather obvious.

>
>And what about the newly-emerging Web-TV and "Internet appliance"
>market?  Talk about least-common-denominator!

****  Currently garbage ideas and if they aren't capable of better than 8
bit color, it's worse than garbage. 

I don't think the coming HDTV technology is going to be an 8 bit
environment! Neither are current *old technology* TV systems.

>.....................I just think it would be nice if
>Web designers gave a moment's thought to supporting a more varied
>class of users in ways that don't compromise the overall presentation.

*****  Most web designers give far more than a moments notice to the whole
issue. Those who provide stereo imagery give FAR more than that. A
stereoscopic page already has to provide for a wide number of viewing
styles. Rendering those images to 8 bit is frustrating because weird things
happen to the colors that aren't desirable. It makes them decidedly more
work and less enjoyable. The ideal would be to have both 8 bit pages and
Full color pages along with all the viewing styles too. That's a lot of
work. The significantly lesser quality of 8 bit images should be reason
enough for your employers to upgrade their machines, or for Sun to upgrade
them for free just to avoid looking so foolish. It's fine that 8 bit works
and helped computers get to where they are now. Let's upgrade our viewing
devices, not downgrade our image expectations. It's a proven fact that
pressures of expectations on the part of the market do in fact drive the
choices of systems design. Sometimes that voice is ignored, but it still has
power. Raise expectations and the systems you are using will get improved.
Part of that voice is web designers all over the place opting for the much
finer high color options. There is no doubt that it is better.

>
>As for me, if someone's pages don't work in my environment, I'm free
>not to visit them again.  After all, there're millions more of them.

*****  Yeah, and the best of them are decidedly full color too!!!! I'd hate
to limit my viewing choices to the 8 bit level. That's highly undesirable
any way you evaluate the situation. I'd rather view the web from home than
use a T1 on an 8 bit system. Maybe that's the employer's underhanded intention?

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------