File talk:Titanic passengers.png

Why SVG can be bad

SVG seems like unadulterated good, and I used to love the idea. But what happens in practice is that it becomes a barrier to open and free improvement. Correcting errors or expanding or updating or improving a graph becomes open to a small club of svg-enabled editors. Virtually anyone can work with jpegs and pngs and gifs, and can convert to and from them. Tools to work with svg are not widely available, or usually free. And the free ones are not that accessible. They tend to be less user friendly and lacking in features. Then once the conversion to svg is done, it becomes entrenched. If someone makes an improved version in png format, they'll run into stiff resistance if they try to replace the svg with the new png. Because everyone knows svg is better. Case closed. Who wants to have to fight that battle just to make an incremental improvement in a graph? So the svg file becomes ossified and impossible to dislodge.

And for what? To safe a little bandwidth? There's no more information to be added by making it more zoomable. Cases like this are not good candidates for svg. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You miss an important point: SVGs can be handcoded. Raster images can't realistically (disregarding anticompressed formats such as XBM and XPM). It's true that it takes knowledge of the SVG format to edit SVG files, generally speaking. But anybody with minimal knowledge/tools can edit text within an SVG file. Indeed, hand-editing SVG files is arguably better than using an SVG tool, as this helps to keep the code tidy and maintainable. This is especially the case in a collaborative environment such as WP/WC, where people would otherwise be using a variety of different tools.

OTOH, in order to edit text in a raster image:

• you will probably need to delete and re-add up to a line of text
• you may need to identify the font, and obtain a copy of it if you don't already have it
• you will need to get the size, alignment and antialiasing right, which may be tricky
• if the text is on a non-plain background, in many cases you might as well forget it, unless a copy of the background image without the text over it is separately made available

Smjg (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Mistake?

• 52 child 3rd class lost of 84 aboard
• 27 child 3rd class saved of 84 aboard

The numbers don't add up ... @Dennis Bratland: are you able to look at this? Smjg (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)