In message <doraymeRidThis-121972.20384808052008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <slrng25gka.1ial.g.kreme@cerebus.local>, Lewis > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> If they are unhappy with the speed of one of my sites, then they need >> to get off dialup or learn to deal.
> Really, you have no understanding of why some people are on dialup > still. If you did, you would not say this.
I couldn't possibly care less *why* anyone is on dialup. It's not at all relevant.
>> Now, in point of fact my sites tend to be heavily CSS and very light >> on crap like flash and multi-megabyte graphics, but that's because >> that's how I work, not because of any interest in the dialup user. >>
> Yeah? Then why aren't you into multi meg graphics,
I'm not into graphics at all, multi-megabyte or not; I am not a graphic designer. But as I said in my example, when I link to gallery images that are quite large (over 2000 pixels wide) I let the browser scale them, and not pass them to ImageMagick like I do for the thumbnail index page.
>> My gallery code shows thumnails which link to scaled images which >> link to the original image. But the original pops up right away >> because the scaled image is being scaled by the HTML code from the >> full size image.
> You cannot imagine how bad this practice is and you have been told by > others too and you take not the slightest notice.
That's true, I am not taking the slightest notice, though I only recall you and your hyperbolic accusations. I will not punish the high speed user by making them do 33% more work just on the off chance that some dialup user will be looking for large high quality images in my gallery. I will not hesitate to put a mutli-megabyte movie file on a site either, and will not take the time to put up a super small version for the chance some dialup user might come by and want to watch it at 80x60 pixels either, or even 160x120.
>> If I cared about dialup users, I'd make the scaled image an actual >> smaller image, like I do for the thumbnails. But this would simply >> make the broadband user take an extra step, in effect punishing them >> for their fast connection in an effort to make allowances for the >> dialup user. This is what I mean by not being concerned with the >> dialup user anymore. >>
> Punishing them? Don't you think you are being a trifle melodramatic > now?
No more so than you are with your talk about the intrinsic value of the person, as if that had any relationship to anything at all.
> You are not short changing anyone by being decent to all. You need to > realign your priorities, young man. <g>
Sorry to disappoint, but I am not by any stretch of the imagination 'young'.
> It is very far from silly. There are visually impaired folk,
Who use browsers that don't load graphics at all, so that's moot.
> there are people with hand helds,
If I ever need to design a site for mobile users, I will. But since the iTouch/iPhone include a real web browser, I doubt very much if the 'mobile' site will be more than a forgotten footnote in a year or three.
> with small screens, with slow broadband, with dialup. You have a weak, > morally offensive,
And you accuse ME of being melodramatic?
> St Peter will have a word to say about this when you turn up at The > Pearly Gates seeking entrance.
'Saint' Peter's been dust for 2,000 years, I'm not worried about his ability to do anything more than make me sneeze. He's certainly well beyond the power to say anything at all. Melodrama much?
-- The Monks of Cool, whose tiny and exclusive monastery is hidden in a really cool and laid-back valley in the lower Ramtops, have a passing-out test for a novice. He is taken into a room full of all type of clothing and asked: Yo, my son, which of these is the most stylish thing to wear? And the correct answer is: Hey, whatever I select.
