Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Kevin Cozens ke...@ve3syb.ca wrote: If you are using some fancy features on a web page it may not be as easy to have the same level of compatability across multiple browsers on multiple operating systems without some conditional code but the amount of browser specific checks should be kept to a minimum. Right, it's not like these new-fangled standards like HTML5 can possibly have any positive effect on a user's experience. Let's all cripple our work in an effort to support old, unmaintained, insecure browsers. In fact, we should ENCOURAGE users to continue using old, unmaintained, insecure browsers. It's the only responsible thing to do. Good plan! New, interactive features? Who needs 'em?!? /sarcasm -- Frank Gore THE place to talk photography! www.FriendlyPhotoZone.com ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Frank Gore wrote: Right, it's not like these new-fangled standards like HTML5 can possibly have any positive effect on a user's experience. Let's all cripple our work in an effort to support old, unmaintained, insecure browsers. In fact, we should ENCOURAGE users to continue using old, unmaintained, insecure browsers. It's the only responsible thing to do. Are you by any chance referring to five kinds of CSS3 gradients that have to be put to a styles file so that it's supported across browsers for sure? ;-) Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
On 02/18/2012 04:16 PM, Kevin Cozens wrote: On 12-02-16 06:20 PM, Steve Kinney wrote: 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, If you were a supporter of the Any Browser Campaign (http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/) you shouldn't have to write alternate style sheets. When I did a redesign of my website several years ago I tested my pages using Netscape 7.2 and 8, FireFox 1.5 and 2.0, Opera 9, Blazer 4.0 (the browser on my PDA), and even Internet Explorer 5.5 and 6. The different browsers showed some errors in the layout. I was able to fix all the issues after some adjustments to the style sheets. The pages then looked the same (except due to minor variation in fonts available to the web browser) without any checks anywhere that looked for a specific browser. If you are using some fancy features on a web page it may not be as easy to have the same level of compatability across multiple browsers on multiple operating systems without some conditional code but the amount of browser specific checks should be kept to a minimum. Actually I use semantic markup via standards compliant xhmtl 1.0 and CSS 2.1. As an example, the pages in my silly little personal site look and work the same in Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari, Epiphany, Konqueror, Midori and IE8. I did not have to tweak anything to accomplish that level of cross browser compatibility - that's what W3C Standards are for and, thank God, Microsoft has finally capitulated and the browser wars are over. I use a few alternate CSS declarations in an auxiliary style sheet to correct rendering errors in IE6, because some people are still using it, and the way IE6 is broken affects the main navigation menu. Those are the only IE6 errors I bother to correct. Visitors to the site who are using IE6 or 7 are greeted by a security warning and upgrade link on every page, wrapped in a conditional comment whose contents are only visible on the offending browsers. :o) Steve ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
On 02/18/2012 04:01 PM, Steve Kinney wrote: Actually I use semantic markup via standards compliant xhmtl 1.0 and CSS 2.1. As an example, the pages in my silly little personal site look and work the same in Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari, Epiphany, Konqueror, Midori and IE8. I did not have to tweak anything to accomplish that level of cross browser compatibility - that's what W3C Standards are for and, thank God, Microsoft has finally capitulated and the browser wars are over. I use a few alternate CSS declarations in an auxiliary style sheet to correct rendering errors in IE6, because some people are still using it, and the way IE6 is broken affects the main navigation menu. Those are the only IE6 errors I bother to correct. Visitors to the site who are using IE6 or 7 are greeted by a security warning and upgrade link on every page, wrapped in a conditional comment whose contents are only visible on the offending browsers. :o) Elegant, Steve - Thanks for the suggestion, and also for promoting W3C awareness. -- Burnie ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
Wow, thank you all so much for the helpful, detailed responses. What a nice body of background for me to work from. I worked for a long time in Photoshop for print, but not web stuff. Thanks again. I love this gimp list... Have a great week and weekend. Dan ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] Web development question?
Hey all. I would hope this might get some responses... I just today saved my first png file. In doing so Gimp came up with a choice box, as to parameters you can choose or not: Interlacing (Adam7) (whatever that is) Save background color Save gamma Save layer offset Save resolution Save creation time Can anyone tell me which of these options they use? What does Adam7 mean? I am looking to create some web pages with drupal. Can anyone tell me their process they use to do a similar goal? (With drupal or WP, etc.) What I'm thinking is that certain of the settings are compatible or not with the blogging engine or not? do you use png or jpeg?, etc. Just wondering. Trying to get up to speed. Thanks so much. Dan ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Daniel Smith opened...@gmail.com wrote: What does Adam7 mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam7_algorithm Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Steve Kinney ad...@pilobilus.net wrote:
Others may know uses for png that I am not aware of, but so far I
have found no use for it in web design.
PNG is quite useful for some effects. Say I wanted a div element to
have a gradient background - I could create a new image that's 1px
wide by the height of my div, add a gradient, export as PNG. Then the
css would be something like:
div { background: url(/path/to/png/file) repeat-x }
..and all divs would have a gradient background, using one tiny file
(and even IE6 will comply). Quite useful for things like faux drop
shadows, rounded corners, etc. too (but newer CSS techniques are
arguably better/easier).
My general rule is: photograph - JPEG, icon/effect -PNG. As with
every rule, there are exceptions ;)
Anyhoo, there are tons of uses for PNG in web design. Check out a
Joomla template sometime - most of those do a crazy amount of styling
using PNG files.
Chris
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
Very useful information. I'm in the habit of just pressing enter twice to export. :) I've always wondered what this stuff does, so this has been an interesting read. -Stefan Maerz ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
On 17 February 2012 09:55, Steve Kinney ad...@pilobilus.net wrote: PNG is a lossless format, so unless you are saving a lot of giant images and run short of time, there is no reason to dial back the compression from the default 9. On 02/16/2012 03:18 PM, Daniel Smith wrote: I am looking to create some web pages with drupal. Can anyone tell me their process they use to do a similar goal? (With drupal or WP, etc.) What I'm thinking is that certain of the settings are compatible or not with the blogging engine or not? do you use png or jpeg?, etc. I usually use jpg format for nearly all web images, because comparable images saved in png normally have larger file sizes. The most potentially interesting feature of png is that it saves transparency, and *nearly* all web browsers now in use understand how to display png images with transparent areas. If you need a transparent background, and you need higher resolution or better scalability than the gif format provides, png might be your answer. Others may know uses for png that I am not aware of, but so far I have found no use for it in web design. In re transparency, most of the time you will not need it. If you load the page under construction in a web browser and use the eyedropperin the GIMP foreground/background color tool, you can set the exact value to make an opaque part of your image match the page background exactly. 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. Firstly, I make most of my images from scratch using minimal numbers of colours to minimise load time anyway so the PNG is almost invariably a lighter weight option. For larger pieces such as banners, photos, avatars, artwork, anything with lots of different colours, I would probably use JPG. On the transparency front, I find PNG a huge benefit over GIF. The obvious example is for logos/decorative images - GIFs do not have alpha transparency, a major issue for any shape other than a rectangle. Another benefit to using PNGs in websites is being able to make interesting and lightweight blocks of colour combinations using repeat-xy backgrounds of semi-transparent images. eg a 1px black image at 20% transparency, etc. I think the last time I saved anything in GIF was for a favicon... Xiella ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
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? -- Frank Gore THE place to talk photography! www.FriendlyPhotoZone.com ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
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 Harksellxie...@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 gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Web development question?
On 02/16/2012 03:20 PM, Steve Kinney wrote: 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 Harksellxie...@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 didn't mean to imply that jpg has an indexed mode. It just seems to me if one exports a GIMP image in indexed mode to jpg the file comes out smaller. Haven't run extensive tests on that, though. GIMP actually transforms back to RGB before going to jpg (asking if that's what you want first). So YMMV. 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 gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
