- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:14:27 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jonathan chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- cc: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Well, jpeg itself doesn't have transparency, nor allow animation of parts of the picture. So it isn't going to help you, and rather than trying to rebuild jpeg from the ground up for technical reasons it seems smarter to use SVG (the specification requires support of jpeg, so you don't lose anything that jpeg already provided). In fact if you want to convert an SVG to a jpeg (and lose the transparency and other neat features - I'll try to make an animated example) there is a tool available as part of the Batik toolkit. I think you should be moaning about the fact that your browser doesn't yet ship with SVG. (Some browsers do, of course). (It is possible in some versions of HTML to have a plugin downloaded automatically, but unfortunately you don't get to choose which of the systems that can handle a particular format is installed. Fine for most people, but it means that someone can't easily choose a more suitable plugin for their needs. Further development - see http://www.w3.org/TR/CX if you're fascinated) Cheers Chaals On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, jonathan chetwynd wrote: >Chaals > >Well it does look impressive, >so I'm stuck moaning about the failure of an easy way to degrade to jpeg. > >thanks again > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org> >To: "jonathan chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com> >Cc: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> >Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:48 PM >Subject: Re: do vector graphics enhance our concept of self? > > >> I have attached an SVG image. The file size is a bit bigger than the >listed >> 3.2k, because it downloads two jpeg images. >> >> But it shows photo-realistic transparent jpegs which can be animated to >move >> around like sprites. >> >> This was generated by Jim Ley's annotation tool - you load up a jpeg and >> trace around the bit you want, then say who it is. >> >> I found it by looking through his search tool - >> http://www.jibbering.com/rdf/foafwho.html >> >> The one modification I made to the code was to change the opacity value - >it >> had opacity="1" for both photos, and for one I made it opacity="0.5" (1 >means >> not at all transparent, 0 means completely transparent). It is not >difficult >> to adapts Nick's tool to do this by default, or as an option. >> >> What this shows is that with SVG you can easily select a piece of a jpeg >you >> want, and use it as a photo-realistic transparent animated sprite. It adds >> around 1-2k per image. It works in the Adobe SVG plugin (available for >many >> browsers - I used it in iCab on MacOSX but it works in Explorer, Netscape, >> and compatible browsers. I haven't tested this yet in other substantial >SVG >> browsers such as Batik but expect it to work fine). >> >> Cheers >> >> Chaals >> >> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, jonathan chetwynd wrote: >> >> > >> >Unfortunately, given our obsession with identity, if SVG is not capable >of >> >photorealistic representation, in a small file size, then we might then >seem >> >to need a (jpeg like?) high compression format, with transparency, and >> >capable of scaling. Alternatively if it were capable, perhaps a camera, >or >> >at least a conversion tool would be extremely popular. >> > >> >In terms of images, bandwidth and accessibility, this may well be one of >the >> >critical areas for development in the near future. >> >many images are just not accessible. >> > >> >jonathan >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> >> >To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> >> >Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:33 PM >> >Subject: Re: do vector graphics enhance our concept of self? >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > Can anyone point to realistic vector portraits, with a small file >size? >> >> >> >> That's really a research topic for low bandwidth telephones, although >> >> the games people may also have something, but I suspect it is >> >> proprietory and may still require a texture map, as JPEG etc. >> >> >> >> It seems to me, though that this mailing list is not a good place for >> >> asking the question. If you are lucky, someone will know, but you >> >> are not targetting the question well. >> >> >> >> I'd try the BT Research web site, as they were interested in this sort >> >> of thing at one time. TV broadcasters may be as well. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 >134 136 >> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 >38 78 22 >> Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia >> (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, >France) >> > > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 08:14:35 UTC