Progressive Jpegs

Posts from the previous support forum
Dave Green
Posts: 58
Joined: 06/07/2006 @ 01:53

Progressive Jpegs

Postby Dave Green » 07/17/2006 @ 04:16

Hi Nate,


Long time no speak. Kids have been sick so I had to do the right thing and down tools.
Just wondering what your thoughts are on progressive jpegs. I have been saving all of my images with GoLive's built in smart object conversion (PSD to Jpegs) as progressive jpegs.
I have recently read a few comments on the net stating that you should'nt use progressive jpegs as not all browsers support this.
I have tested on the majority of browsers so far and no problems.
Have you come across this before or know which browers have problems with this.

Cheers,

Dave

Nate Baldwin
Site Admin
Posts: 3724
Joined: 04/25/2003 @ 19:05

Postby Nate Baldwin » 07/17/2006 @ 10:22

Hi Dave - I hope the kids are feeling better.

I'm not aware of any progressive JPEG problems in any recent browsers. Do you know what kind of probelms they're supposed to have? It might be one of those things that was a problem a while back but not of much concern now. Or could be that I just don't use progressive JPEGs much and haven't run into the problem. The only reason I haven't really used them is I prefer to have the image load normally instead of the progressive quality increase thing, but that's just personal preference.

Dave Green
Posts: 58
Joined: 06/07/2006 @ 01:53

image naming convention

Postby Dave Green » 07/20/2006 @ 08:19

G'day mate,

Number one child is now fine, number two is geting there, so I'm still on a go slow.
Yep, you were correct in your answer to me, browsers not being able to display progressive jpegs seems to definitely be a thing of the past, Cool.

Next question I have is the naming convention for images.
I have been naming my images without any spaces between the description because I am not sure if you are restricted to a certain amount of characters
ie: ballyellowlarge.jpg
Would I be better to have named it ball_yellow_large.jpg so that the web spiders have a better chance of indexing pages (I hope that makes sense).

Thanks Nate,

Cheers,

Dave.

Nate Baldwin
Site Admin
Posts: 3724
Joined: 04/25/2003 @ 19:05

Postby Nate Baldwin » 07/20/2006 @ 10:09

Sure, that makes sense. For the naming conventions, I think it's one of those things where you have to find a decent middle ground. Normally, I go with underscores between words. The exception would be when the file or folder name is something that visitors may want to type into the browser directly, since I hate to make people type in an underscore. So I'd probably go with mysite.com/pages/goatfeed instead of mysite.com/pages/goat_feed

That's all pretty relative though. For images and pages you aren't likely to navigate directly to, I generally do use the underscores.


Return to “Archives”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest