Jeff Howden jeff at jeffhowden.com
Tue Aug 26 00:48:54 CDT 2003


> From: Joshua Olson
> > weight
> >     yeah, i think an image would weigh less than
> >     all the html and little images necessary to
> >     produce the same thing)
> I'd reccon it'd be close, but I bet that an all HTML
> solution would win out, size-wise, as a decent HTMLer
> could do it without any images.  Wouldn't be too tough
> to figure out, if your up for it.

just tried and not evne halfway into it and it's already well over the 2442

> > portability
> >     no chance of not selecting the entire html graph
> >     to paste into something like word.  less chance
> >     of people messing with the numbers once it's been
> >     pulled into an authoring medium.
> It's pretty easy to tweak an image, too.  Photoshop is
> good like that. [...]

sure, but that adds an extra step, a requirement for extra software to edit
the pic, and extra skills to do it such that it's not noticeable (ie careful
placement of replacement text, font recognition, etc).

and with regard to portability, an html graph is much harder to send via
email separate from the presentation.  if it's an image you just save it to
your desktop and email it as an attachment.

> > quality
> >      as in consistency across all devices with
> >      graphical display capabilities)
> Eh?  I bit a simple graph like the one he made wouldn't
> be too tough to make it look right on 96% of the
> browsers out there.  We can use tables, right??

but an image is 100% eh?

the more exact you try to get with the html the more bloated the code gets.

the more complex the code gets the more trouble you'll have if you need to
change some element of the display of the graph.

naw, imho, i think an image wins out on many accounts.


Jeff Howden - Web Application Specialist
Résumé - http://jeffhowden.com/about/resume/
Code Library - http://evolt.jeffhowden.com/jeff/code/

More information about the thelist mailing list