Tuesday, September 27, 2011

[WD&D] Digest for sitedesign@googlegroups.com - 8 Messages in 3 Topics

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/sitedesign/topics

    Artist <sitepro@gmail.com> Sep 27 12:53PM -0500 ^
     
    ;)
     
     
    On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:23 AM, mrrichardson85@gmail.com <
     
    > One big reason a lot of websites don't use .png images is because they
    > are typically larger file sizes when being saved, and ie6 had problems
    > with them.
     
     
    I know where you are going, but you have gotten it a little mixed-up in your
    explanation.
     
    GIF is limited to a 256 color palette due to its 8 bit nature.
    PNG is capable of both 8 bit & 24 bit palettes, and the 24 bit version has a
    nice alpha channel for tansparencies.
     
    An 8 bit GIF can be seen in about any browser. The trade-off is that,
    unless careful (and what I feel is now completely unnecessary) planning is
    used, you will see jaggies in any 8 bit transparency (GIF or PNG). But
    transparent GIFs are often used because they have been traditional, trouble
    free in any browser.
     
    However, in this day of broadband with video streaming everywhere, I think
    that most artists such as myself have moved on to using the transparent 24
    bit PNG format for anything important, such as transparent logos. This
    allows the logo to be used on about any background without any issues. 8
    bit transparent images can look great on the one background that they are
    designed for, and look like pure crap on anything else. Using a 24 bit
    transparent PNG image allows me to retain brand integrity for the logo no
    matter what background someone may use it for to link back from his site.
     
    That said, GIF also offers another advantage, animation. Animated GIFs
    should not usually use any sort of transparency (with exceptions). Such
    animations are usually silent (though there once was a hack that allowed
    audio to be included). But GIF animations depend on bitmapped page mapping,
    making Flash or HTML5/CSS3 vectors much smaller animation files. Plus Flash
    readily supports audio (no one really supported the audio hack in browser
    displays).
     
    MNG was supposed to follow up on the PNG standard (Motion Network Graphic),
    but never materialized.
     
     
    > I prefer using .png images over .gif images when I am using
    > an image with a transparency, but it all depends on what you are going
    > to be using the images for.
     
    Same here. And especially if I am using transparency I will use the 24 bit
    PNG file format.
     
    > a gradient (or gradients) it takes a little more work to get the
    > gradients to look right rather than with a .png file it just works off
    > the bat.
     
    Yup, 24 bit PNGs look flawless, like the Photoshop version. GIFs are way
    too much work if you are dealing with these repeatedly. It's just not worth
    the bother anymore.
     
    > simple transparency then they will use a .gif file and if it is a
    > complex image that needs transparency and has a lot of gradients then
    > most people will use a .png file.
     
     
    8 bit PNG (or GIF) files are still superior for line drawings, cartoons,
    schematics, simple blocks of a design, accents. The main thing to remember
    is that 8 bit files suck at gradients, photos or photo realistic imagery.
     
    Although JPEG is a lossy image format (some of the image information is
    actually lost), it is still usually the best for photography. However,
    always save the Master Image File for any JPEG, as JPEG compression schemes
    do leave noticeable artifacting and if you ever want to change, modify or
    otherwise correct the image, you are best starting with the master file.
    Re-Saving a JPEG as a JPEG can destroy the image quality further.
     
     
    > benefit in using a .gif over .png.
     
    > Hope this helps!
     
    > Matt
     
    Me too.
     
    ;) -Doug
     
     
     

     

    Olivier Florence <oli.florence@gmail.com> Sep 27 08:59AM +0100 ^
     
    Depending on how complicated the design is and producing a fully functional
    HTML page including drop down menu etc takes us between 4 and 8 hours. The
    design is then ready for CMS integration, the page is checked in all
    browsers we support (IE 7+, Firefox, Safari, Chrome) and the HTML has to be
    W3C compliant.
     
    We do not charge separately for this, it is part of the full design and
    development packages we offer.
     
    hope this helps
    Kind regards
    Olivier
     
     
     
     
    --
    Olivier Florence
    oli.florence@gmail.com
    www.flowebdesign.ie
    I am on Linked In <http://www.linkedin.com/in/olivierflorence>!
    Follow us on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/flowebdesign>

     

    Liam Kenneth <liam.kenneth89@gmail.com> Sep 27 09:06AM +0100 ^
     
    Olivier what happens when you use the facebook Iframes for like buttons or
    the google map Iframes as these don't validate as xhtml strict?
     
    Liam
     

     

    Olivier Florence <oli.florence@gmail.com> Sep 27 10:09AM +0100 ^
     
    We validate the frame of the site and check the pages after they are all
    done. unfortunatly some items are not possible to validate as you said. I
    have never used the FB button thus.
    The idea really is to have a site without clutter and with as few HTML
    errors as possible but considering customers have access to the content via
    the CMS it does happen to see some strange things there.
     
    I see validation as important but I agree that it is not always 100%
    possible, sad to think that it is often the biggest companies with access to
    massive resources that make us fail validation, some of which advocating for
    validation.
     
    Kind regards
    Olivier
     
     
     
     
     
    --
    Olivier Florence
    oli.florence@gmail.com
    www.flowebdesign.ie
    I am on Linked In <http://www.linkedin.com/in/olivierflorence>!
    Follow us on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/flowebdesign>

     

    MariF <maria.focsa@gmail.com> Sep 27 05:08AM -0700 ^
     
    Thank you guys! Being a Business Catalyst template, I don't bother
    with the WC3 validation, as the BC web apps are invalid, so...
     

     

    wakwak <customsitepro@gmail.com> Sep 27 06:49AM -0700 ^
     
    With a site developed in a "end-user friendly" CMS, as soon as the
    customer takes possession all bets are off for validation. It is
    liable to end up having blinking text and animations from the early
    nineties on it like a animated gif of a door opening or a torch with a
    flame!
     
    It is a shame when some of your best work cannot even be shown in a
    portfolio due to the owner destroying it! such is life!

     

    Liam Kenneth <liam.kenneth89@gmail.com> Sep 27 03:29PM +0100 ^
     
    <blink>LOL! I do agree</blink>
     

     

--
You received this because you are subscribed to the "Web Design and Development" group at Google Groups. Messages are prefixed with [WD&D] in the subject. No spam is allowed. Be civil, be professional; try to be helpful & mind your netiquette. All posts are Copyright the original author and the Web Design and Development group. No reproduction of this content is allowed in any electronic or printed form outside the group at Google Groups and the http://www.WDaDg.org website. Any unauthorized use of our copy constitutes illegal Copyright infringement and may well be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Digital Signature: $©"[W|D|&|D]g"|^|!SiteDesign@GG||#%$
To post to this group, email SiteDesign@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, email SiteDesign-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SiteDesign?hl=en
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)