Posted by dorayme on 09/19/06 22:03

In article
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0609191514070.32512@ppepc87.ph.gla.ac.uk>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
> > Recommendation: Always resample and optimize images to the exact
> > size required when using in a webpage.
>
> This is a fine recommendation in many caaes, indeed; but there
> are exceptions. If you want to size images to match your text, then
> you can use CSS to size them in em units. See discussion at
> http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/img-em-size.html
>
> hth

Yes, may I add a thought: In general, deterioration in quality is
far more noticeable in scaling up than down. It is true of even
good image editors for reasons that are not hard to understand.
And it would likely be even more true of lower class image
editing functions in browsers. So, website makers that do want to
occasionally employ this em based dimensioning should consider
allowing the natural size to be a little bigger than what they
guess would be the ideal for the majority of users text size
settings. Yes, this will be at the cost of a little bandwidth.
But the gains for the very occasional use of this technique might
well be worth it.

I have considered it in situations where the banner heading that
is mainly a picture of styled text looks strangely small when the
browser text setting is upped and yet one does not want to make
it bigger because then it is too big for smaller settings...

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]