I know this is probably a really stupid question, but for some reason I can only see Tuss's avatar in Opera. When I look in IE, it's just a black triangle. It's happened on some other forums too (especially HOTU). Don't get me wrong: I'm fine with using Opera. I just want to know why I can't see it in IE.

I posted this in Vox Pops instead of Site Issues 'cause I didn't think it was really a problem with the site or message board.

Strange, I just tested it with IE and it isn't working here either. Do you know the file types of the avatars that aren't displayed in the HOTU forum? It could be an IE bug with png images.

Edited by Tapuak at 20:37 on July, 18th 2003

Can you see Mr Creosote's image? If not, your IE has a problem displaying .png files.

Used to see Tuss avatar very well before, but since several days all I see is a black square.

Yes, I can see Mr. C's avatar just fine.

Most likely, it is an issue with PNGs. IE has only the most basic support for PNGs, anything remotely out of the ordinary and IE will just show some wierd crap or nothing at all. What version of IE are you using? If it's not the newest one, try updating.
Also, if you have quicktime installed, that may be causing the problem:


You can go HERE To see different PNGs and see how your browser handles them. You can also go HERE and download either the first or third plugin. The plugins are designed to provide MNG/JNG support, but they should also improve PNG support.

Rumpletweezer basically already said it. EI has no support for alpha channels in the PNG format, no matter which version you're using (not that it really has been updated for years...). My PNG files never use alpha channels, that is why they're displaying correctly. http://png.unicast.org/pub/png/pngsuite.html

Edited by Mr Creosote at 22:15 on July, 18th 2003

Hmm... I almost started to look back in the thread and see who this "Rumpletweezer" was before I remembered that discussion about M$ and AOhell.

The lack of png support is another great reason to use Internet Explorer, by the way.

It appears that my version of IE 6.0.2800.1106 doesn't support any kind of transparency (which I don't care much, really).

Like I said, the only problem I have to see an avatar is Tuss one. I see Mr Creosote really fine.

I can't see Tuss's avatar either. Does fortune shine on me?

Eagle- Unless your version of IE is really screwed up, you should be able to see single colors transparencies in PNGs (ie, the same kind of transparency used in gifs). Also, Tuss's avatar doesn't have any transparency in it, so it must be some other alpha channel function that's screwing it up (gamma correction most likely).

A E I- It's a face shot of a blonde chick. Nothing special (neither in a good way nor in a bad way).

Hmm. I see a black square, not a triangle.

I too see a black square, but that's not a big issue, Tuss always has some ugly looking female on there, so it's no biggie

//edit: Donna isn't too bad looking this time.

Here's Tuss's current avatar Don't know why she used png in the first place though, png is not a good choice for putting photographic images on the web. The filesizes on fullcolor pngs are way too large for web use. It doesn't make much practical difference with small images like this, they're still under 10k, but the png is still almost twice the filesize of the jpg with no noticeable difference in quality.

I always use png for avatars, because as you said, the file size is small anyway, and there is usually no noticable difference if I use an indexed colour palette of 255. I hate any lossy formats. Maybe she thought the same. Or she wanted people to notice how crappy their browsers are

I use whatever filetype gets the best size for the pic in question. Most images I use for sigs or avatars work well as a palette based png (I usually use 100~200 colors, depending on the image), the rest I use jpg for. Tuss's avatar however is a truecolor png. Truecolor pngs aren't very good for web use though because the filesizes are always almost twice as big as they need to be (which is rather odd since palette based pngs tend to be about half the filesize of a gif of similar quality). When you're dealing with small images like avatars, the difference between a 7+k png and a 4k jpg isn't noticeable, but with larger images it becomes very noticeable.

I usually use jpg for photos, png for smallish to large graphics, and gif for tiny images (approx 25x25 or less) and for animated images. For transparency, sometimes I use pngs with single color transparency (same kind of transparency as gifs) and sometimes I use gifs.

If this it true, shouldn't it be using a monochrome scheme?

Um.. Not sure what you're talking about, but I believe the answer is no. The colors can be any 100~200 colors you want. All gifs for example are 256 colors or less (many are as low as 3), but you rarely if ever see a monochrome gif. Palette based pngs are, for all practical purposes, the same as gifs.

Edited by Cypherswipe at 04:43 on July, 26th 2003

Tuss: Try it out yourself: open an image, choose "Image - Mode - Indexed".