Re: Multiple image files?

Hi Eduardo,

You are absolutely right - I have pointed out this issue a long time ago
in the forum. I know a lot of photographers with several thousansa of
photos as well as many companies and private people who wouldn't use any
time at all to convert their pictures into more sizes. Therefore the
picture element is dead before it's even born. Only a few pro neerds
(myself incl.) compared to the amount of pictures from 'ordinary'
internet users will do the work as meant to.
As I just wrote in another message: We need to use the interlaced
pictures and let the browser decide how much to download for the actual
screen.
A massive pressure on the browser companies might be nessesary - but
then we must press them to make it happen ;-)

Johnna in Denmark
(My English isn't perfect, either, but I guess you'll understand
anyway).
----------------------------

On 17/10/2013 18:16 "Eduardo Marques" <ebmarques@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Guys!
> 
> English is not my natural language and I anticipate my excuses for
> something
> badly written or badly understood.
> I have been following all messages and so far did not see one saying:
> "To
> have more than ONE image file is senseless."
> If I am correct, then I am the first one saying that! :)
> Lets take an example? Lets say about a Real Estate Website importing
> Listings from RETS. It will have a MIN of 10,000 Listings (some, with
> more
> than 100,000 Listings). From my experience, I say each Listing have
> around
> 15 images. Each image have its correspondent thumbnail. Result: one RE
> Website with a MIN of 300,000 image files. That's a lot, huh? Well, I
> am
> used to see a lot of Websites with much more than that.
> Now I see the Picture Element Proposal:
> 
> <picture alt="">
> <source media="(min-width: 45em)" srcset="large-1.jpg 1x,
> large-2.jpg 2x">
> <source media="(min-width: 18em)" srcset="med-1.jpg 1x, med-2.jpg
> 2x">
> <source srcset="small-1.jpg 1x, small-2.jpg 2x">
> <img src="small-1.jpg">
> </picture>
> 
> This example require 6 "versions" of an image! IMO, senseless!
> I mean, the above RE Website would need a MIN of 1,800,000 image
> files!
> 
> Would love to read your comments and sorry if I totally missed
> something!
> 
> []s
> Eduardo Marques
> <ebmarques@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>