|
|
Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 06/08/05 17:34
Travis Newbury wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
>>I have tended to prepare jpgs as progressive (where the pic loads roughly
>>all at once and in a set number of passes gains clarity) for my websites and
>>have had no complaints, and they have appeared fine on my inspections. But a
>>friend experienced on PCs and web design said once he tended not to do this
>>as some browsers did not support it well in the PC world. It has been at the
>>back of my mind for a while. Anyone know anything about this.
>
>
> If you use Flash, or if any of your images will never be loaded by
> Flash, then you can not use progressive as it is not supported.
>
Not sure what you are saying here Travis, reread it several times, are
you saying Flash is required for progressive JPG support? If so, that is
not true. I believe any modern browser (that support images) supports
progressive JPGs and interlaced GIFs. Think it was old IE3.x that bombed
on progressive JPGs and IE6.x still has trouble with PNGs and gradient
alpha channels.
Now making JPG progressive does increase their overall file size a bit
and the overall download time for us relegated to dialup; but for web
use I can see where giving the visitor some image, if a bit blurry at
first has its benefits, especially on large images....akin to music vs
'dead air' while 'on hold' with a telephone....
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|