but he mentions friggin' tiffs, but not pngswhat is he, a pngphobe?
(
Naive Amoeba Bored Cig,
Thu 16 Sep 2004, 19:19,
archived)
pngs are a bit rubbish in ie though aren't they?and a lot of packages out there are pretty poor at making them without vastly inflating the size...
that said i don't think tiffs are a viable option either, but the 'how to make animations smaller' bit is invaluable advice when you're moaning at someone about the size of their file :)
(that said i don't think tiffs are a viable option either, but the 'how to make animations smaller' bit is invaluable advice when you're moaning at someone about the size of their file :)
eclectech is older but no wiser,
Thu 16 Sep 2004, 19:23,
archived)
true true about the animationsbut IE users can get to fuck, i loveth my PNGs so
( Naive Amoeba Bored Cig,
Thu 16 Sep 2004, 19:25,
archived)
arf!much as i understand your sentiments i prefer to make things that as many people as possible can see... unfortunately that still means ie...
( eclectech is older but no wiser,
Thu 16 Sep 2004, 19:27,
archived)
hmm... i have that problem herewww.beaverroad.org.uk/new/
but it's got alpha transparency, so the edges blend..
guess i could php-scriptify it so that it changes according to the browser...
if i knew php....
(but it's got alpha transparency, so the edges blend..
guess i could php-scriptify it so that it changes according to the browser...
if i knew php....
Naive Amoeba Bored Cig,
Thu 16 Sep 2004, 19:30,
archived)
pngs are fine in IE. IE users don't see PNG transparency, that's all.
(
Mr. Bell Division,
Thu 16 Sep 2004, 21:03,
archived)
which makes them a bit rubbish in ie...as that is one of the main reasons people like to use them
( eclectech is older but no wiser,
Thu 16 Sep 2004, 21:13,
archived)