Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: Why did Outlook 2007 remove the display of animated graphics, and.

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Brian Tillman

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 11:43:40 AM9/26/07
to
OreoKing <Oreo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> will this oversite be "fixed" in future?

I certainly hope not. It's not an oversight. It is a deliberate design
decision.
--
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]

OreoKing

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 12:02:07 PM9/26/07
to
Can you tell me what thrills you about this change? Wouldn't it be better to
support it and allow control by email admins?

CraiginNJ

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 12:35:24 PM9/26/07
to
... a deliberately *bad* design decision, apparently. Rather than
modify the .gif interpreter so it can't be a security risk, they just
kill an essential HTML email function.

Removing .gif animation from HTML email is like removing all water
from the planet because some people get sick from drinking bad water.
.... Very backwards thinking!

Brian Tillman

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 2:28:50 PM9/26/07
to
CraiginNJ <~UseNameForPrefix~@att.net> wrote:

> ... a deliberately *bad* design decision, apparently. Rather than
> modify the .gif interpreter so it can't be a security risk, they just
> kill an essential HTML email function.
>
> Removing .gif animation from HTML email is like removing all water
> from the planet because some people get sick from drinking bad water.
> .... Very backwards thinking!

Animated glitz and glitter adds nothing to information exchange and
unnecessarily increases bandwidth usage.
--
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]

CraiginNJ

unread,
Sep 30, 2007, 12:07:52 PM9/30/07
to

Gee, Brian, if that were true then I guess the entire movie and
television industry is doomed (not to mention YouTube) and we'll all
gladly go back to radio and magazines because they're more "efficient"
and have less gratuitous glitz? ;-) (Just kidding to make a point.)

I hope you realize a moving image can convey things that a static
image cannot and more concisely than any other means. The important
bandwidth bottleneck is the eye and mind of the recipient, and that's
where animated .gif's can be valuable.

What's more, before you suggest tiny animated .gif's consume
unnecessary bandwidth, you should really check your facts. Email,
including any animated .gif's in them, amount to about 1% of total
Internet traffic. If you want to fight moving image bandwidth hogs, I
wish you luck trying to stop all the streaming videos and "shared"
(stolen) video files traversing the Net. ;-)

I hope that you realize that just because you personally don't
understand the value of something doesn't mean it has no value, ...
especially with things like laws, government regulations, and industry
standards like HTML.

Diane Poremsky [MVP]

unread,
Sep 30, 2007, 4:24:53 PM9/30/07
to
animated images may be useful in web pages or as separate videos, but they
are not necessary for email... and if they are, send them as attachments so
the recipient can open them in a viewer which supports animating them.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips by email:
dailytips-sub...@lists.outlooktips.net

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:
EMO-NEWSLETTER-S...@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM


"CraiginNJ" <~UseNameForPrefix~@att.net> wrote in message
news:t0hvf3d4ogu4t3soa...@4ax.com...

Brian Tillman

unread,
Sep 30, 2007, 9:31:24 PM9/30/07
to
CraiginNJ <~UseNameForPrefix~@att.net> wrote:

> Gee, Brian, if that were true then I guess the entire movie and
> television industry is doomed (not to mention YouTube) and we'll all
> gladly go back to radio and magazines because they're more "efficient"
> and have less gratuitous glitz? ;-) (Just kidding to make a point.)

Different medium. That's not email. Email, even today, is still a
text-based medium, the proof of which is that anything binary that needs
transmission gets converted to TEXT prior to the sending, which, naturally,
increases the side of the transmissions buy as much as two or three times
the original size.

> I hope you realize a moving image can convey things that a static
> image cannot and more concisely than any other means. The important
> bandwidth bottleneck is the eye and mind of the recipient, and that's
> where animated .gif's can be valuable.

If you want to convey animated images, put them on a web page and send the
URL by mail. A Plain Text message.

> What's more, before you suggest tiny animated .gif's consume
> unnecessary bandwidth, you should really check your facts. Email,
> including any animated .gif's in them, amount to about 1% of total
> Internet traffic. If you want to fight moving image bandwidth hogs, I
> wish you luck trying to stop all the streaming videos and "shared"
> (stolen) video files traversing the Net. ;-)

You're assuming everyone has broadband.

> I hope that you realize that just because you personally don't
> understand the value of something doesn't mean it has no value, ...
> especially with things like laws, government regulations, and industry
> standards like HTML.

I define what has value <grin>.
--
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]

0 new messages