Re: Image sizes

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, James Adcock wrote:
> I have to admit I am confused by the image size issue.  Should a submitter
> be submitting large images to "aim for the future" or small images since the
> HTML then becomes the source for the EPUB and MOBI ebook readers who cannot
> in general be expected to use their air time to download huge 10s of
> megabytes ebook files?  What's the practical recommendation?

There's a huge difference between the recommended-in-the-FAQ 40-60K size and
tens of megabytes.  You could double the image resolution in both directions
and it would still be a factor of *100* less than the tens of megabytes
that you fear.

And I'd be satisfied with aiming for the present, not the future.  Currently
it's aiming for 10 years ago.  Actually aiming for the future is a separate
issue and could be handled in any number of ways--for instance, encouraging
people to save their image scans so that if it becomes necessary to upload
a bigger version in 2024, they can.
_______________________________________________
gutvol-d mailing list
gutvol-d-4LCm/o+qPMZ96Xl/[email protected]
http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d