[WEB4LIB] Re: The TIFF-Hungry

[Richard Wiggins]

It seems to me there are two questions here: the right archival format, and the right format for transmission to diverse Internet users.

Isn't it pretty well accepted that TIFF remains the format of choice for archival storage of digitized images of documents?  So at that level the choice is understandable.

Besides the question of finding a TIFF plugin, you have to ask about the efficiency of shipping large TIFF files over potentially slow network links.  It seems like there are far better alternatives: 

-- Thumbnails pointing to ever-larger JPEG images (the largest could even be the TIFF).  See http://history.rhpl.org/Time_Machine/1910s.htm for examples of 4 levels of resolution of a post card collection.

-- PDF (even if in image format internally)

-- HP's FlashPix format, or some other proprietary format.  This may require users to download and install a plugin, but the progressive steps to higher resolutions could be made most efficient for the user and the publisher alike.

/rich


------Original Message------
From: "Thomas Dowling" <tdowling at ohiolink.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at webjunction.org>
Sent: December 29, 2000 12:58:40 PM GMT
Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: The TIFF-Hungry


>
> The guideline TD cites appears to give organizations an easy out.  So
you
> can't see our webpage?  Install Flash or Shockwave.  You can't see our
> graphics?  Install a TIFF viewer.  Etc.  Will the agency be required to
> prove that a plug-in or similar proprietary viewer was "required?"  What
if
> something else works equally well or better without requiring additional
> plug-ins--wouldn't that be better access?  What if it's just pointless
> frippery, lack of resources, fascination with recent gizmos, etc?  Who
> decides?

As I read it, it's more, "Can't see our webpage?  Follow _this link_ to
install the accessible version of the FooTech Deluxe plug-in..." which at
least avoids the PTO's current dead-end situation: "Go find your own &$%
plug-in and don't complain to us when it doesn't work."  Since agencies
can skip the entire accessibility process if they claim it's an "undue
burden," this probably isn't the way to get them to re-engineer entire
site structures.

Thomas Dowling
OhioLINK - Ohio Library and Information Network
tdowling at ohiolink.edu
Richard Wiggins
Consulting, Writing & Training on Internet Topics
www.netfact.com/rww         wiggins at mail.com
517-349-6919 (home office)  517-353-4955 (work)
Richard Wiggins
Consulting, Writing & Training on Internet Topics
www.netfact.com/rww         wiggins at mail.com
517-349-6919 (home office)  517-353-4955 (work)  
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup