Re: Second Sight

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <529jc0$p88@amanda.dorsai.org>,
James OReilly <joreilly@dorsai.org> wrote:
>If GS/TCP is successfully implemented together with a graphical web 
>browser, wouldn't it still be necessary to have a Second Sight card to 
>address the graphics involved?

   Only if you needed all of the graphics loaded and must view them
from within the WWW browser. Most of the time, that isn't necessary; a
'stand-in' icon for a graphics and a save to disk option will let the
users use whatever external viewers they want. For .gifs, a simple
dithering scheme will let a low-quality replacement sit in the window.

   Graphics on the web are overrated. Most of the time, the graphics
on pages (especially backgrounds and other gunk) are eye candy and are
not necessary. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes
many thousand words (pun intended) of space to transfer and display
it.  In other words, you get a poor return for the bandwidth.

   All my web pages use just over 16MB of space. The optional pictures
are 500K more, and that's mostly because I have a 250K jpeg of Beagle
Bros disk warnings and a 100K Babylon 5 logo. My pages are designed to
give people as much information as possible while consuming as little
bandwidth as possible.

Nathan "Just say no to fluff" Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?  -R.A. Heinlein