On 02/16/2012 05:25 PM, Burnie West wrote: > On 02/16/2012 01:54 PM, Frank Gore wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Xiella >> Harksell<xie...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> As a point of difference :) >>> >>> I find myself tending to save the majority of my images (in >>> terms of >>> developing the site - stripes, decorations, non-content stuff) as >>> PNGs. >> You're not the only one, the vast majority of professional web >> designers use PNGs as a flexible way of displaying images in >> browsers. >> The last browser I know of that didn't support PNG files properly >> was >> IE6... and can we count how many years old that is?
Usage is down to something around 5% on most sites I have seen recent statistics for. Considering the security aspect, it's really not doing anyone a favor to support IE6 any more... But the moment I stop writing alternate style sheets for it, I just "know" my next client will be running it in Win2k and asking me why the pages are all broken and stuff. :o) > There is a minor but sound reason for using png rather than jpg > in many of > these cases - the fact that png is lossless. It does result in > somewhat larger > files, but if the specific image wants to be compressed to an > indexed-mode jpg > for file size reasons, a png background is I believe somewhat less > likely to > create artifacts - or so it seems to me. I did not know that jpg had an indexed mode. I knew I would be getting some interesting feedback when I posted that answer. I have been doing this junk for so long that I developed an automatic habit of anti-aliasing transparent gif images "by hand" as per my earlier comments. And yes, it is time to abandon that and just use png images. Yay! :o) Steve _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list