On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:46:37 -0600, Ignoramus24995
wrote:

On 2015-12-31, Ed Huntress wrote:
FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those
photos in a little less than two seconds.

The image size issue is something we wrestle with all the time in
online magazines. At Fab Shop, we use an underlying PDF file, so our
photos are JPEG-compressed like hell.

What I do in most places, like my project pages, is that I provide
thumbnails of decent quality, like 400x400. They link to pictures of
very good quality (loosely defined).

No, you have not, in most instances I've seen. Some pages have
specified a display size but the entire file has to download to
display it at that rez. I don't recall ever seeing a fast-loading
page from you in the past several years. Cites, please?


My ebay pictures are about 500 kb.

That would be a whole lot better. The file in question this time is
exactly FIVE MEGABYTES and sized 5312x2988x16M.
http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Equipment.jpg


There are two schools of thought: One is to juggle things to try to
accomodate people with slow connections. The other is, if they have a
slow connection, it's not worth it to lower quality for everyone else
just to accomodate the others. If your intended readers are serious
businesspeople, they almost certainly have the fastest connection that
they can get. Surveys in the publishing business have indicated this.

You presented facts that lead an inescapable conclusion, that it is
more important to provide details to (most) people, who can afford
good connections, rather than accommodate the remaining few who have a
slow connection.

Atta Boy, Old Weird Ed! Serve the rich, **** the poor (and all the
people who are not serviced by fast Internet by their providers).


Thumbnails, generally, alleviate this dilemma.

When used, yes they do.

--
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.
Art is knowing which ones to keep.
-- Scott Adams, 'The Dilbert Principle'