progressive jpgs

[dorayme]

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. There are
arguments for and against using progressive, I can imagine some but am
unlikely to know all.

dorayme

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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....

 

[Richard Rundle]

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.

No, Travis is making the opposite point, that Flash doesn't support
progressive JPG files.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Richard Rundle wrote:

No, Travis is making the opposite point, that Flash doesn't support
progressive JPG files.

Oh okay, then shouldn't that be 'ever' not 'never'?--+
|
That's what didn't make sense to me.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

"Never" was a typo, it should have been "ever"