You posited that graphic artists should know how different compression levels will work out. That's just not feasible. If they need to resize, etc. later, I'd hope they're saving a full-sized, layered, PSD file that they can go back to and make adjustments for different outputs. My point was that they can't just "know" what result a compression setting will give, since the same level of compression can give drastically different results depending on the image.
I think we're in agreement now about the "save for web" (I too often wonder why they chose that instead of just giving you those options standard when you save as...but whatevs) not being the i>source of the problem.
Now:
You are indeed correct, I of course did not consider the possibility that you may be compressing and resizing through image processing on the server. It's my (admittedly bad) knee-jerk reaction to assume that most people who consider themselves web developers are really just hobbyists who know little to nothing about the web or actual development. If you've been in the industry for any length of time, I hope you understand my reaction is rooted in the frustration caused by the erosion of credibility afforded to actual web developers, due to the aforementioned folks.
That being said, I must apologize for that jab. I wasn't in a particularly good mood when I replied, and you have shown yourself a gentleman by your response. For that, I salute you.
I had to tell each of them to stop using the bloody 'save for web' module for their pictures because the result of it is crap.
Don't blame the tool. It's not that the result of the save for web feature is inherently crap, it's that the user is selecting a compression rate that's far too severe, causing artifacting and all sorts of ugliness. The settings you're telling them to use will result in an image that's not suitable for web publishing...1280x1024 and low compression? That's gonna give you a huge (for the web) file size, for starters. And most users wouldn't be able to see the whole image, or worse, their browser may resize it, most likely to an odd fraction of the original size, resulting in that great jaggedy look. Unless you're doing the unthinkable and using element attributes to resize the image in the page. *shudder*
but the 'save for web' confuses the hell out of those graphics artists exactly because it explicitly hides what it is doing from the user.
Photoshop's save for web tool could never be seriously accused of explicitly hiding what it does from a user. If anything, it's got to be overwhelming for most users because of the amount of control it offers. You can apply multiple compression rates to areas of an image using alpha channels, along with a dearth of other features, all right there in the right sidebar. At any rate, how is simply selecting "90% quality or better" disclosing the process to the user, or giving them any control?
If you are doing graphics work professionally, is it too much to ask that you have some idea about how different compression levels work out?
Wow. You obviously don't understand how this whole compression thing works. You can't just assume that one setting will work for every image. So much of it depends on the content of the image, since what you're really deciding is "how much of this image can I throw away before it's noticeably degraded?" Of course, if you're just using the lowest compression/highest quality setting (bad idea for the web), this is moot.
I guess it's a good thing you're not a graphics artist, but given you're comments, I also have doubts about your web development expertise.
Where'd you come up with the 60% figure? English is a Germanic language. When I studied Latin, we memorized the Romance Languages (id est, languages descended from Latin) using the acronym FRIPS, for: French Romanian Italian Portugese and Spanish.
While it's true we do get a lot of words from the Latin language (and French, etc...), English is, in fact, a Germanic language.
Wow, they just let anyone moderate these days. How is the parent post flamebait? Who was I inciting? Most people who crack on the dupes/day old stories get modded up as funny. Maybe you guys who modded me down need a sense of humor;).
It does have inheritance. When the standards are properly implemented in the browser, formatting trickles down, hence the term "Cascading" in Cascading Style Sheets. Formatting cascades to child-elements and subclasses, which is really all you need. All of the "a.x"'s in your example will inherit from the original "a". You can't get around a declaration for every item that you want to be different, but if you put all the common stuff in the original "a", it will cut down on your code, and any attribute can be overridden by "a.x", provided you put it further down the list.
Not to be an insensitive clod, but it seems to me that most people who have trouble with CSS (apart from browser mutilations) just don't understand how it works.
Wow! Indestructable CD's. Just imagine what that does to the "I broke my CD, so I'll download a copy off the internet" argument.
The wise man speaks only of what he knows. Please think before you type, all ye (especially you Anonymous Cowards) who are so quick to respond with sarcasm.
The record companies aren't taking the dough for CD's broken after purchase, they're taking it for CD's broken in transit (i.e. during distribution to retailers). Perhaps if you had done a little research before firing off, you would have known that. It used to be a given that a certain percentage of albums would be destroyed in transit due to the fragility of vinyl LP's. CD's, by comparison, are practically indestructible when they're all packed in their boxes, shrink-wrapped onto palettes, and shipped off.
If only that were true. Artists generally make $.05-$.12 a CD. If you want more info about the industry and contracts, etc., I highly recommend
This Business of Music. It's chock full of interesting details like formulas used to determine artist royalties. For instance, did you know the labels still take money for R&D costs on the "new technology" of the Compact Disc? Or that many still take out $$ to cover "breakage", which is a hold over from distribution of albums on vinyl?
I'm not liable for any $$ amount on my credit card or my debit. I'll say, though, I use debit card rather than my credit card. Why? Cause the bank doesn't have as much to lose as the CC company. With the bank it's all your money, with the CC company, it's their's until you pay it back, which means you have one more person in your corner - and with better lawyers, probably;).
It's only creepy if they're made to look human. It seems to me, we'd want to keep our robots looking as much like machines as possible. Then it doesn't matter that they don't move like people, and most importantly, everyone knows that they are in fact machines.
I want my mobile to be able to stream music. And for that matter, I also want my car stereo to be able to receive streaming audio. Downloading is so yesterday, who wants to pay per song? As a Rhapsody subscriber, I'd love to access my playlists through my phone or my car - Get on it, guys!
I RTA. He's right, it is ridiculous. Ridiculous that he let his "SO" online without proper precautions and education. Having worked in IT for about a decade, and having worked with users of various skill levels, I must say that I rarely see an even moderately knowledgable user experience anything near what he describes. It does happen, but rarely.
Most computers I've seen saddled with spyware and/or viruses are owned/operated by incompetent users. I'm not saying everyone who uses a PC needs to know how to fix it, or even how it actually works. Just how to actually use it. I don't need to know how a car runs to use it, and all I can fix is a dim headlamp, but I still had to learn how to properly operate it.
Is that too much to ask? That people who use computers take a little time to learn what to do and what not to do when you're using a PC? I don't think so. It sure would reduce the number of viruses, if not spy/malware.
I also heard that. In addition, Apple and Google are tracking everyone who reads this post, and will send each reader $.05 for everyone that they email a link to. It's true - I've already received $1,000,000.00!!!
The US government taxes everybody who lives in the US, whether or not they are citizens (even illegal aliens pay sales tax).
First of all, sales tax is not a federally levied tax. It is decided upon and collected at the state level and lower (County or Municipality level for Local Option Sales Taxes and Hospitality Taxes).
Second of all, illegal aliens would have a tough time paying Federal taxes, given that they don't have a Social Security Number, which is how your income (and the various taxes you pay on it) are linked to your person. This is the main reason companies hiring illegal immigrants pay them under the table -- without a SSN, the company can't very well pay taxes on them. They also get the added "bonus" of cheap labor, as it's not like the laborer's can call the Employment Security Commission to complain about making $2/hr, now is it?
If I were making this post or publishing work that I'd done for some government or company, then the copyright goes to that government or company, because that published work was written by an extension of the government or company (me) and is thier property.
You are correct. The phrase you're looking for is "work for hire". Work prepared by an employee that falls within the scope of their employment is owned by their employer (all rights reserved).
It's just a marketing gimmick to boost their performance. If nobody uses it then it might as well not exist.
I couldn't agree more...buuuuut - they do exist, and while most end users will never have access to them (let alone use them), most companies use them (not this particular product, but similar, specially tweaked tools and drivers) to boost test results. Graphics chip companies do it, and so does everyone else. So, while it's not a particularly honest practice, not using one or more of these methods of tuning for specific benchmarks can make one company look much worse than another (more so than they may really be).
On top of that, some companies force publishers into an agreement whereby to get review copies (pre-release) of software, the review has to be approved by that software company. This doesn't sound like a tempting situation, but no publisher wants to be the last one to publish a review, especially when consumers have been using it for just as long as the reviewers. Being able to offer a "first look" is a pretty big deal, and a big bargaining chip for manufacturers.
And always remember the saying: "There's lies, damnable lies, and then there's statistics"
I'm also troubled by your implication that a musician that uses GarageBand is a "musician", somehow different than a person that uses ProTools. A talented musician will sound good on both. A skilled graphic artist could definitely make something worthwhile in MS Paint. They wouldn't, because MS Paint is crap, but the point is that it's the artist that creates the art, the tool is just a tool, good or bad.
Not different, just not as serious. Let me cover two things here that are common in the replies to my original post:
Some people can't afford a ProTools rig
If you can afford an apple instead of a PC, I'm thinking a couple hundred dollars more isn't gonna kill you
A musician is someone who makes music with whatever tools they have
Wrong. This is a highly romanticized idea of what a musician is. A musician is someone who understands the fundamentals of music and how to apply them. It sounds arrogant, but it's not. Let me put it in geek terms: can someone call themselves a programmer if all they do is emulate what they've seen in other people's code? If they hard code 1,000 iterations of an event rather than using a loop? No. Because they don't understand the basic concepts of programming. What I'm not saying is that you have to be awesome, just proficient. Because if you understand why you're doing what you're doing, you understand how to innovate -- how to manipulate the system you're working with to do what you want to do with it, rather than just regurgitate what other people have done with it.
Being able to play some songs on an instrument does not make you a musician any more than copying and pasting someone's code makes you a programmer.
You can buy a digidesign Mbox factory package for $550. It comes with ProTools LE (the only real limit - practically speaking - is record/playback of 32 simultaneous tracks) and a crapload of really good plug-ins. And the Focus Rite mic pres are pretty nice.
I know that sounds like a commercial, but I actually own one. And I love it. My question is can Apple really compete with that? I mean, ProTools is the industry standard for digital audio recording and editing for a reason.
Then again, I suppose any "musician" who buys Garage Band isn't exactly looking to take their tracks to a real engineer or shop their creation around to record companies, and more than "graphic artists" who use MS Paint would take their creations to a printing press.
how bundling WMP with Windoze gives (or can give) MS a monopoly on the media player market.
Even if you cannot uninstall WMP, it does not stop you from installing whatever other equally crappy media player you wish to use. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, this doesn't hurt Quicktime, et alia, because WMP doesn't play some of the most popular formats on the web -- which means other players are installed by the millions, just so people can watch movie trailers or listen to audio clips.
Slashdot Mirror
A couple of things first:
You posited that graphic artists should know how different compression levels will work out. That's just not feasible. If they need to resize, etc. later, I'd hope they're saving a full-sized, layered, PSD file that they can go back to and make adjustments for different outputs. My point was that they can't just "know" what result a compression setting will give, since the same level of compression can give drastically different results depending on the image.
I think we're in agreement now about the "save for web" (I too often wonder why they chose that instead of just giving you those options standard when you save as...but whatevs) not being the i>source of the problem.
Now:
You are indeed correct, I of course did not consider the possibility that you may be compressing and resizing through image processing on the server. It's my (admittedly bad) knee-jerk reaction to assume that most people who consider themselves web developers are really just hobbyists who know little to nothing about the web or actual development. If you've been in the industry for any length of time, I hope you understand my reaction is rooted in the frustration caused by the erosion of credibility afforded to actual web developers, due to the aforementioned folks.
That being said, I must apologize for that jab. I wasn't in a particularly good mood when I replied, and you have shown yourself a gentleman by your response. For that, I salute you.
I had to tell each of them to stop using the bloody 'save for web' module for their pictures because the result of it is crap.
Don't blame the tool. It's not that the result of the save for web feature is inherently crap, it's that the user is selecting a compression rate that's far too severe, causing artifacting and all sorts of ugliness. The settings you're telling them to use will result in an image that's not suitable for web publishing...1280x1024 and low compression? That's gonna give you a huge (for the web) file size, for starters. And most users wouldn't be able to see the whole image, or worse, their browser may resize it, most likely to an odd fraction of the original size, resulting in that great jaggedy look. Unless you're doing the unthinkable and using element attributes to resize the image in the page. *shudder*
but the 'save for web' confuses the hell out of those graphics artists exactly because it explicitly hides what it is doing from the user.
Photoshop's save for web tool could never be seriously accused of explicitly hiding what it does from a user. If anything, it's got to be overwhelming for most users because of the amount of control it offers. You can apply multiple compression rates to areas of an image using alpha channels, along with a dearth of other features, all right there in the right sidebar. At any rate, how is simply selecting "90% quality or better" disclosing the process to the user, or giving them any control?
If you are doing graphics work professionally, is it too much to ask that you have some idea about how different compression levels work out?
Wow. You obviously don't understand how this whole compression thing works. You can't just assume that one setting will work for every image. So much of it depends on the content of the image, since what you're really deciding is "how much of this image can I throw away before it's noticeably degraded?" Of course, if you're just using the lowest compression/highest quality setting (bad idea for the web), this is moot.
I guess it's a good thing you're not a graphics artist, but given you're comments, I also have doubts about your web development expertise.
Where'd you come up with the 60% figure? English is a Germanic language. When I studied Latin, we memorized the Romance Languages (id est, languages descended from Latin) using the acronym FRIPS, for:
French
Romanian
Italian
Portugese and
Spanish.
While it's true we do get a lot of words from the Latin language (and French, etc...), English is, in fact, a Germanic language.
Wow, they just let anyone moderate these days. How is the parent post flamebait? Who was I inciting? Most people who crack on the dupes/day old stories get modded up as funny. Maybe you guys who modded me down need a sense of humor ;).
This morning when I saw it on CNET
It does have inheritance. When the standards are properly implemented in the browser, formatting trickles down, hence the term "Cascading" in Cascading Style Sheets. Formatting cascades to child-elements and subclasses, which is really all you need. All of the "a.x"'s in your example will inherit from the original "a". You can't get around a declaration for every item that you want to be different, but if you put all the common stuff in the original "a", it will cut down on your code, and any attribute can be overridden by "a.x", provided you put it further down the list.
Not to be an insensitive clod, but it seems to me that most people who have trouble with CSS (apart from browser mutilations) just don't understand how it works.
So you're saying CD technology is stagnent?
In a word: YES
Wow! Indestructable CD's. Just imagine what that does to the "I broke my CD, so I'll download a copy off the internet" argument.
The wise man speaks only of what he knows. Please think before you type, all ye (especially you Anonymous Cowards) who are so quick to respond with sarcasm.
The record companies aren't taking the dough for CD's broken after purchase, they're taking it for CD's broken in transit (i.e. during distribution to retailers). Perhaps if you had done a little research before firing off, you would have known that. It used to be a given that a certain percentage of albums would be destroyed in transit due to the fragility of vinyl LP's. CD's, by comparison, are practically indestructible when they're all packed in their boxes, shrink-wrapped onto palettes, and shipped off.
They get like maybe 1$ per cd.
If only that were true. Artists generally make $.05-$.12 a CD. If you want more info about the industry and contracts, etc., I highly recommend This Business of Music. It's chock full of interesting details like formulas used to determine artist royalties. For instance, did you know the labels still take money for R&D costs on the "new technology" of the Compact Disc? Or that many still take out $$ to cover "breakage", which is a hold over from distribution of albums on vinyl?
Oy.
I use debit card rather than my credit card.
Oops. I'm dyslexic. Make that vice versa. I use my credit, rather than my debit.
I'm not liable for any $$ amount on my credit card or my debit. I'll say, though, I use debit card rather than my credit card. Why? Cause the bank doesn't have as much to lose as the CC company. With the bank it's all your money, with the CC company, it's their's until you pay it back, which means you have one more person in your corner - and with better lawyers, probably ;).
It's only creepy if they're made to look human. It seems to me, we'd want to keep our robots looking as much like machines as possible. Then it doesn't matter that they don't move like people, and most importantly, everyone knows that they are in fact machines.
You still listen to radio?
Given the choice between Clear Channel's playlist and my own, I think I'll take mine, but thanks anyway.
I want my mobile to be able to stream music. And for that matter, I also want my car stereo to be able to receive streaming audio. Downloading is so yesterday, who wants to pay per song? As a Rhapsody subscriber, I'd love to access my playlists through my phone or my car - Get on it, guys!
Americans believe what they want to believe no matter what the facts are.
Silly me, I thought that was a worldwide problem =P
I RTA. He's right, it is ridiculous. Ridiculous that he let his "SO" online without proper precautions and education. Having worked in IT for about a decade, and having worked with users of various skill levels, I must say that I rarely see an even moderately knowledgable user experience anything near what he describes. It does happen, but rarely.
Most computers I've seen saddled with spyware and/or viruses are owned/operated by incompetent users. I'm not saying everyone who uses a PC needs to know how to fix it, or even how it actually works. Just how to actually use it. I don't need to know how a car runs to use it, and all I can fix is a dim headlamp, but I still had to learn how to properly operate it.
Is that too much to ask? That people who use computers take a little time to learn what to do and what not to do when you're using a PC? I don't think so. It sure would reduce the number of viruses, if not spy/malware.
I also heard that. In addition, Apple and Google are tracking everyone who reads this post, and will send each reader $.05 for everyone that they email a link to. It's true - I've already received $1,000,000.00!!!
According to The Register, US-based scientists using stem cells has hit a brick wall.
According to The Grammar Daily Chronicle, subjects and verbs have hit a brick wall in negotiations. It seems the two parties just can not agree. =P
...
What? I told you it went without saying, didn't I?
The US government taxes everybody who lives in the US, whether or not they are citizens (even illegal aliens pay sales tax).
First of all, sales tax is not a federally levied tax. It is decided upon and collected at the state level and lower (County or Municipality level for Local Option Sales Taxes and Hospitality Taxes).
Second of all, illegal aliens would have a tough time paying Federal taxes, given that they don't have a Social Security Number, which is how your income (and the various taxes you pay on it) are linked to your person. This is the main reason companies hiring illegal immigrants pay them under the table -- without a SSN, the company can't very well pay taxes on them. They also get the added "bonus" of cheap labor, as it's not like the laborer's can call the Employment Security Commission to complain about making $2/hr, now is it?
If I were making this post or publishing work that I'd done for some government or company, then the copyright goes to that government or company, because that published work was written by an extension of the government or company (me) and is thier property.
You are correct. The phrase you're looking for is "work for hire". Work prepared by an employee that falls within the scope of their employment is owned by their employer (all rights reserved).
It's just a marketing gimmick to boost their performance. If nobody uses it then it might as well not exist.
I couldn't agree more...buuuuut - they do exist, and while most end users will never have access to them (let alone use them), most companies use them (not this particular product, but similar, specially tweaked tools and drivers) to boost test results. Graphics chip companies do it, and so does everyone else. So, while it's not a particularly honest practice, not using one or more of these methods of tuning for specific benchmarks can make one company look much worse than another (more so than they may really be).
On top of that, some companies force publishers into an agreement whereby to get review copies (pre-release) of software, the review has to be approved by that software company. This doesn't sound like a tempting situation, but no publisher wants to be the last one to publish a review, especially when consumers have been using it for just as long as the reviewers. Being able to offer a "first look" is a pretty big deal, and a big bargaining chip for manufacturers.
And always remember the saying: "There's lies, damnable lies, and then there's statistics"
I'm also troubled by your implication that a musician that uses GarageBand is a "musician", somehow different than a person that uses ProTools. A talented musician will sound good on both. A skilled graphic artist could definitely make something worthwhile in MS Paint. They wouldn't, because MS Paint is crap, but the point is that it's the artist that creates the art, the tool is just a tool, good or bad.
Not different, just not as serious. Let me cover two things here that are common in the replies to my original post:
Being able to play some songs on an instrument does not make you a musician any more than copying and pasting someone's code makes you a programmer.
You can buy a digidesign Mbox factory package for $550. It comes with ProTools LE (the only real limit - practically speaking - is record/playback of 32 simultaneous tracks) and a crapload of really good plug-ins. And the Focus Rite mic pres are pretty nice.
I know that sounds like a commercial, but I actually own one. And I love it. My question is can Apple really compete with that? I mean, ProTools is the industry standard for digital audio recording and editing for a reason.
Then again, I suppose any "musician" who buys Garage Band isn't exactly looking to take their tracks to a real engineer or shop their creation around to record companies, and more than "graphic artists" who use MS Paint would take their creations to a printing press.
how bundling WMP with Windoze gives (or can give) MS a monopoly on the media player market.
Even if you cannot uninstall WMP, it does not stop you from installing whatever other equally crappy media player you wish to use. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, this doesn't hurt Quicktime, et alia, because WMP doesn't play some of the most popular formats on the web -- which means other players are installed by the millions, just so people can watch movie trailers or listen to audio clips.
That's why only have one account for everyone where I work. Username: admin Password: admin That way, people never forget!