Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!marque!gryphon!richard From: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Pictures, was (Re: Me and Peter on the binaries on the net) Keywords: The NET Message-ID: <4593@gryphon.CTS.COM> Date: 24 Jun 88 01:53:38 GMT References: <4571@gryphon.CTS.COM> <32674@aero.ARPA> Reply-To: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 21 In article <32674@aero.ARPA> foy@aero.UUCP (Richard Foy) writes: >In article <4571@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>.... >> they are legally binding), and secondly, the information >> content per byte of picture is about 10X lower than text. >> The result of this would be lots and lots and lots of pictures > >I agree with your assessment of the relative merits of pictures vs text. >However I wonder why this is true. > >Techncal briefings come to mind. Sometimes one good chart showing a sketch >conveys a lot more more information a lot better than do a lot of text charts >or verbal statements. It's because of color. Rather than ship around tables of numbers, it probably is more efficiant to ship around a 320x200x1 picture. 640x400x4 is another matter, though. -- "Oh great. I have no mouse. And I must click." richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard