Geoffrey
May I assure you that I am well behind you in the queue, despite being
of the boomer persuasion. A few thoughts from me. Needless to say I
am not claiming to be without guilt in the sins being considered.
First up, one of the issues with including graphics in the text is
that if the email system automatically includes the previous text it
thus automatically includes the images. I believe it is easier to set
systems not to include attachments so from a basis of minimising the
volume of transmissions I would suggest that attachments are to be
preferred to embedded images.
Progressing further down this track it would of course be good if
everyone considered whether they needed to include all the text of
every thread they reply to and edited out that which is not essential.
A second thought is the discussion group I subscribed to in New York
(where just about everyone was on really fast broadband with NO
download limits) did not allow attachments or embedded images at all.
If one wished to send an image (or some other attachment) to the group
one simply put it on a blog and sent round a hyperlink to the relevant
part of the blog. Both Google and Yahoo provide free blogs that seem
to be quite simple to use.
Martin
On 8/28/07, Geoffrey Dabb <> wrote:
>
>
>
> I, a pre-baby-boomer, am one of the least expert persons in this chatgroup
> on this matter. However here are some thoughts.
>
>
>
> Individual circumstances will vary, between home and work systems, and email
> programs.
>
>
>
> If you send a graphic as a separate file, it will go through at the
> original size of the file. Controlling the size of the overall message is a
> matter of the sender first creating a file of the appropriate size. If you
> incorporate in the text, other factors come into play.
>
>
>
> I think that incorporating the graphic in the text is often better, more
> convenient anyway.
>
>
>
> I use Office Outlook. I can read the size of a message in 2 ways, either in
> the list panel, or after opening the message under 'Properties'. These
> readings are usually different for in-text graphics. Under the first,
> Julian's 'Coastal Birds' message was 315kb, and under the second 240kb.
> Evidently Anthony saved or manipulated the derived graphic before
> reincorporating it, creating a larger file. On the first read, his message
> was 924kb, and under the second 683kb. [I am unable to comment on the
> reason for the multiple sendings.]
>
>
>
> Here are 2 suggestions, apart from the obvious starting with a file of the
> appropriate size. First, if you are incorporating in the text, try reducing
> the space occupied by the graphic in the message. I just reduced Julian's
> message to 40kb by doing this. Secondly, if you are in any doubt about the
> size of a message, try sending it to yourself first.
>
>
*******************************************************************************************************
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra
Ornithologists Group.
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
List-Subscribe: <>
List archive: <http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/canberrabirds>
List manager: David McDonald, email
<>
|
