Thank you twilyth. Until the DDDT graphics, I had no reason not to ass-u-me that there was a standard. The Mission Statement certainly appeared to be clear to me.

I greatly support the DDDT project and will continue to run it, along with all WCG projects, but I found the graphics to be a first in what could be a disturbing trend. Subsequent comments in other threads like, “WCG is a hoster of projects, not the owner ...” only tend to increase my concern. I am reminded of an old Middle Eastern parable. To paraphrase it, “If you let the camel’s nose in the tent ... soon the whole camel will be in the tent”.

Cheers, twilyth!!

<dataman>

So does our/your local/national medias...but there is no hue and cry to terminate their dissemination.

I suspect that many members enjoy the graphics as a part of the experience of shared computing. I used to enjoy the qraphics, though I did not understand them for the years that I did seti@home. Nowadays the opportunities for shared computing are more practical and less romantic! I support the idea of some standards for graphics. I am amazed that the rubbish for Dengue project required downloading fifteen meg in order to fill the screen with maps too small to be readable, a whole lot of pale grey courier text, and a minute docking image. I understand the graphics to be re-sizeable, but have not succeeded in doing so, within the two minutes that I gave the effort to try.

halfcard you are dreaming or you have not read the stats at the bottom left corner of that clock.
I can see there enough controversial items to keep the debate running fo a few more days (at least).
Cheers. Jean.