On Mon, 23 May 2005, Timwi wrote:
I'm trying to tell you that if you are not
interested in the images, the
presence and absence of images should not make any difference to you
because it does not make any difference to the time taken for the *text*
to load and display -- unless you have a browser which artificially
waits until all images are loaded, in which case I would just simply
suggest to upgrade, rather than trying to re-educate everyone in the
Wikipedia community on what *you* think is the right amount of images in
articles.
Which has never been my problem: I am not aware of any browser that
requires all of the images to be downloaded before it shows the page.
I have no idea how you concluded that was my point; I was talking about
HOW MUCH TIME THE PAGE TOOK TO DOWNLOAD IN TOTAL.
And because images sometimes do not download in a predictable order,
a user must then DOWNLOAD ALL OF THEM to determine which ones are useful,
& which ones are useless. Even the ones that a contributor insists ought
to be displayed in Wikipedia at 1280x1024 -- I assume that is an example
of the kind of image you have said you object to? Or would complaining
about it be an attempt to "re-educate everyone in the Wikipedia
community on what *you* think is ... right"?
I'll make this easy on both of us: I'll stop reading or answering any
more of your posts to this list. Obviously, that will make us both
much happier.
Geoff