RE: Suggestions for new tool options

Subject: RE: Suggestions for new tool options
From: "Brierley, Sean" <Sean -at- Quodata -dot- Com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:07:58 -0400

Hallo:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Gooch [SMTP:Chris -at- lightwork -dot- co -dot- uk]
>
> If on the other hand (as many do) you use Word as *both* source and
> object format (ie. someone else is going to look at the Word doc),
> then you will encounter less headaches if you do as Andrew suggests
> and embed the images *in the version which you are going to use
> as the object version*. You may, or may not, continue to use linking
> in the source version (I can see that often there would little to be
> gained
> by maintaining the different source version).
>
This is exactly why your workflow and tool has to be decided *after* you
figure out what your deliverables are. You could, of course, ZIP the files
so that they unzip linked graphics to a correct location. You could decide
you don't want to share application source files (as I do, I ship PDF for
review and everything else). However, sharing DOC files is common practice.

> I also agree with Andrew about pre-formatting the images before
> including them in your doc --- I spend a lot of time in PSP or similar
> getting images that are the right size, aspect ratio, resolution, don't
> use colour information if it isn't needed, etc.
>
I deal mainly in screen captures. My workflow permits me to capture,
resample, and name my graphics perfectly to my satisfaction automatically,
without fussing around in a bitmap editor. As for your color comment,
remember, for display, color is free. It only costs in print if you are
outputting to a color printer and then, only really if color accuracy is
important. (If it is, the price will be high). Consider, too, that 8-bit
(256) color bitmaps are no larger than greyscale ones, which are also 8-bit.

> If you just link images
> you may not think about this, and then think embedding *must be*
> a bad idea 'cos the file size will be huge. It needn't be. Once again,
> the distinction between "source" image and "object" image is
> useful ---- keep a library of sources at the highest quality / res poss,
>
Highest res possible is a bad idea from the standpoint of wasting storage.
If you capture a screen, then 96dpi is fine cos that's the res of the
source. If it's a photograph, anticipate the linescreen or resolution of the
highest-res output device, but certainly you have to ask yourself if keeping
the image at more than 150 dpi is worth it.

> but tailor them to the end-document each time you use (embed) them.
>
> HTH
>
Cheers,

Sean
sean -at- quodata -dot- com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

Sponsored by Cub Lea, specialist in low-cost outsourced development
and documentation. Overload and time-sensitive jobs at exceptional
rates. Unique free gifts for all visitors to http://www.cublea.com

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.


Previous by Author: RE: Quark Express conversion
Next by Author: RE: XML book
Previous by Thread: RE: Suggestions for new tool options
Next by Thread: RE: Suggestions for new tool options


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads