Thumbnail gif Question.

[DLU]

How do you reduce the bit count when making a thumbnail gif?
Expression web will automatically make a thumbnail but it does not seem
to reduce the program size. The Clover valley photo on my site is the
one I am trying to reduce. The gif is 364.37 KB, the gifs above it are
as little as 5.36 KB.


--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************

 

[dorayme]

How do you reduce the bit count when making a thumbnail gif?

You open it in an image editor, you reduce the pixel dimensions to
thumbnail size and then you open the other barrel and compress it or
format it (jpg or png or gif). I have seen muscular pictures totally
humbled and reduced to tearful modesty after being thus shot.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

How do you reduce the bit count when making a thumbnail gif?

By reducing pixel dimensions, reducing number of colors in palette, not
dithering, or a combination of all of these factors.

Expression web will automatically make a thumbnail but it does not seem
to reduce the program size.

Is Expression web actually resampling the image or just constraining
with HTML width & height attributes?

The Clover valley photo on my site is the one I am trying to reduce.

What site? You have not supplied a URL!

The gif is 364.37 KB,
Ugh!

the gifs above it are as little as 5.36 KB.

Maybe GIF is not the *best* format, JPG has much better compression and
works best with "photographic" full color images...

 

[DLU]

Load it into your graphics editor and resize it. If you don't have one
there are freebies you can download, 3 that come to mind are irfanview,
xnview and gimp.


FYI, gif is usually not a good format for photographic content. It only
supports 256 colors. The quality will be poor and the file size (in KB)
unnecessarily large. Stick with jpg. A properly dimensioned and
compressed jpg will be a fraction of the gif size, and better quality.

I figured it out with MS Image composer.
I can make any of the formats, just have never played around with it
before. I think all the auto function does is constrain the dimensions
although it had to reduce the pixel count to get to the 346 KB.

I forgot to post the URL:
http://home.surewest.net/bikesac/bikesac/



--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************

 

[DLU]

FYI, gif is usually not a good format for photographic content. It only
supports 256 colors. The quality will be poor and the file size (in KB)
unnecessarily large. Stick with jpg. A properly dimensioned and
compressed jpg will be a fraction of the gif size, and better quality.

Yes I actually did make the pic a jpg. When saving it in image composer
I ad several choices. The gif is the smallest but the difference is
only 6 KB, not enough to slow it down that much.

I also set the view if you click on the image to show the full size
original. If you are on dial up it might take a bit more time.

--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************

 

[Neredbojias]

Yes I actually did make the pic a jpg. When saving it in image
composer I ad several choices. The gif is the smallest but the
difference is only 6 KB, not enough to slow it down that much.

I also set the view if you click on the image to show the full size
original. If you are on dial up it might take a bit more time.

Get rid of the target="_blank" attribute. It's not valid with a strict
4.01 doctype anyway.

 

[Bergamot]

Yes I actually did make the pic a jpg. When saving it in image composer
I ad several choices. The gif is the smallest but the difference is
only 6 KB, not enough to slow it down that much.

It depends on the picture. Gif only supports 256 colors, so a photo with
a limited number of colors will end up a smaller file than one with more
variety. Either way, jpg is still overall a better choice for photos.

 

[DLU]

Get rid of the target="_blank" attribute. It's not valid with a strict
4.01 doctype anyway.

What can I use in its place to have the link open in a new page?

--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

What can I use in its place to have the link open in a new page?

You don't.

Let your user decide, they may want to open the link in a new tab, or
new window by right-clicking, or not! Their choice. If the link opens
in the same window and if your page is "good" enough they can ways hit
the back button to return.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...+new+window+bad+web+design&btnG=Google+Search
why opening links in new window bad web design - Google Search

 

[DLU]

You don't.

Let your user decide, they may want to open the link in a new tab, or
new window by right-clicking, or not! Their choice. If the link opens
in the same window and if your page is "good" enough they can ways hit
the back button to return.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...+new+window+bad+web+design&btnG=Google+Search

why opening links in new window bad web design - Google Search

A survey of my users showed that they like the setup where they do not
have to go back. They like being able to have the main page open and a
second one with it. I think it is actually sell confusing to most of
them. Again, these are not sophisticated users, just people looking for
information, or meeting schedules and such. Very few of them even know
what USENET is. Occasionally a a meeting I have shown someone a USENET
group when they wanted some kind of information and they were astounded
that such a medium even exists.

Also, there may be other legitimate reasons for having a link open in a
second window. I find it odd, that not provision has been made for that.

--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************

 

[Neredbojias]

A survey of my users showed that they like the setup where they do
not have to go back. They like being able to have the main page open
and a second one with it. I think it is actually sell confusing to
most of them. Again, these are not sophisticated users, just people
looking for information, or meeting schedules and such. Very few of
them even know what USENET is. Occasionally a a meeting I have shown
someone a USENET group when they wanted some kind of information and
they were astounded that such a medium even exists.

Also, there may be other legitimate reasons for having a link open in
a second window. I find it odd, that not provision has been made for
that.

Well, if the majority of your users like it, so be it. However, believe
me when I say the majority of most people don't. Take me for instance.
I went to your site to check the image you mentioned. It was pleasing
to see that the image filesize was only around 11k. I clicked on the
link to view the full-size image, -a nice pic, indeed. But when I
attempted to go back, there was no back. Petulantly, I closed the
errant window, but in my aggrieved state I accidentally double-clicked
the mouse and also closed the first/main window as well. Now truly
perturbed, I made a voodoo doll of you in a leotard and spent several
hours sticking pins in the loci of what are traditionally the most
delicate regions available to an actual living host. See?

 

[Harlan Messinger]

A survey of my users showed that they like the setup where they do not
have to go back. They like being able to have the main page open and a
second one with it. I think it is actually sell confusing to most of
them. Again, these are not sophisticated users, just people looking for
information, or meeting schedules and such.

It doesn't take any sophistication to click a big button that says
"Back"--which is more of a cue than they get from the unlabeled Close
button in the upper right-hand corner of the window.

Very few of them even know
what USENET is. Occasionally a a meeting I have shown someone a USENET
group when they wanted some kind of information and they were astounded
that such a medium even exists.

I don't understand what their lack of awareness of Usenet has to do with
the question at hand.

Also, there may be other legitimate reasons for having a link open in a
second window. I find it odd, that not provision has been made for that.

Not every place where HTML is used even *has* such a thing as "a second
window". There are no second windows on my Windows Mobile phone, for
example. And then, in my Firefox, a target attribute opens up another
*tab*, not another window. A pop-up blocker may also prevent a new
window from opening.

 

[DLU]

Well, if the majority of your users like it, so be it. However, believe
me when I say the majority of most people don't. Take me for instance.
I went to your site to check the image you mentioned. It was pleasing
to see that the image filesize was only around 11k. I clicked on the
link to view the full-size image, -a nice pic, indeed. But when I
attempted to go back, there was no back. Petulantly, I closed the
errant window, but in my aggrieved state I accidentally double-clicked
the mouse and also closed the first/main window as well. Now truly
perturbed, I made a voodoo doll of you in a leotard and spent several
hours sticking pins in the loci of what are traditionally the most
delicate regions available to an actual living host. See?

Hmm, I may have to reconsider then. I thought I felt pins and needles
this morning but I attributed it to the niacin I took earlier.
And I don't wear leotards, I wear spandex bicycle clothing.

--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************

 

[Raymond Schmit]

Well, if the majority of your users like it, so be it. However, believe
me when I say the majority of most people don't.

The best way of solving this issue, is that the browser must be able
with a right-clik on the link to propose:
Open in the same window if the "_blank" option is used
Open in a new window if the "_blank" option is not used

 

[Neredbojias]

Hmm, I may have to reconsider then. I thought I felt pins and
needles this morning but I attributed it to the niacin I took
earlier. And I don't wear leotards, I wear spandex bicycle clothing.

<grin />

Aw, I didn't really make a voodoo doll of you, but I do believe that
superfluous windows aren't a good idea. Anyway, happy holidays.

 

[Neredbojias]

The best way of solving this issue, is that the browser must be able
with a right-clik on the link to propose:
Open in the same window if the "_blank" option is used
Open in a new window if the "_blank" option is not used

Why not make browsers ignore the target attribute altogether? I believe
most (maybe all) modern browsers already have the "open in a new window"
option available in the right-click context menu already. -Or at least
have a "preferences" setting which allows ignoring targets.

 

[Chaddy2222]

Why not make browsers ignore the target attribute altogether?  I believe
most (maybe all) modern browsers already have the "open in a new window"
option available in the right-click context menu already.  -Or at least
have a "preferences" setting which allows ignoring targets.

They all do. All modern browsers have pop-up blockers, which can be
set to block all pop-ups. Which I do in IE7 and Firefox3 as well as
Opera (when I actually use Opera that is).

 

[Raymond Schmit]

Why not make browsers ignore the target attribute altogether? I believe
most (maybe all) modern browsers already have the "open in a new window"
option available in the right-click context menu already. -Or at least
have a "preferences" setting which allows ignoring targets.

Yes .... but why not having also the "open in the same window"
option. ?

 

[Neredbojias]

They all do. All modern browsers have pop-up blockers, which can be
set to block all pop-ups. Which I do in IE7 and Firefox3 as well as
Opera (when I actually use Opera that is).

But can these pop-up blockers be set to ignore "pop-ups" created by the
"target=_blank" attribute? I know they work on j/s pop-ups and at
least some browsers can be persuaded to open new windows in tabs, but
how 'bout the first thing?

 

[Neredbojias]

Yes .... but why not having also the "open in the same window"
option. ?

Shouldn't be needed; that is and should be the default, then if any
page target setting is ignored...