Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 25 Aug 1995 00:26:47 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Aug 1995 Christopher Whittle <[log in to unmask]>
said:
>This is self defeating. Why even bother cyberspace with low res garbage.
>People will not visit low res sites as there will be too much information
lost
>and there are so many sites providing high quality images to view.
I can't imagine anyone choosing a web site simply because it offers high
resolution images. Unless on an electronic serendipity, people visit web
sites, I imagine, because of the content offered. Resolution is not
content. Indeed, when I visit a site that insists on showing me high
resolution images, more often than not I'll turn off the images or leave
the site. At the rate my web browser works (and most everyone else's with
dial-up connections) "high resolution" just means "stay away, go to the
library and use a book." For most web work, low resolution "garbage" is
what I want.
Someday this will all change. We'll fly through the low resolution
catalogues of on-line image repositories and download (at a price) a
resolution and a license to suit our needs. In the mean time, let's
reserve our snooty aires for something really worthless.
--
______________________________________
Robert A. Baron
Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont, NY 10538
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|