- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:42:24 +0100
- To: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Joe Clark wrote:
>
>> And how does the filesize (and therefore, time to download) of HTML
>> compare with your average PDF (which in many cases originated from a
>> print job, with lots of pretty pictures that more often than not are
>> still at a whopping print resolution)?
>
>
> I gather that, in the short matter of two days, the term "pretty
> pictures" has come to act as shorthand for any use of anything other
> than text on the Web that the author dislikes.
Would be nice if you actually read I wrote in context ("which in many
cases originated from a print job, with lots of pretty pictures").
Nowhere did I say that all non-text information is pretty pictures. But
I for one can do without simple brochureware-to-PDF, with massive
background stock photography and such nonsense.
> Gee, aren't we *supposed* to be creating pretty pictures for all them LD
> folks?
Again, not against pretty pictures, but not if they weigh in at 500+Kb
simply to provide me with an the the photo of "businessman with laptop
looking interestedly at his screen"
P
_____________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 16:42:03 UTC