Posted by Don on 10/27/06 01:46

dorayme wrote:
>
> In article <45398295.25539799@sendspamhere.com>,
> Don <me@sendspamhere.com> wrote:
>
> > And the drawbacks are...?
>
> Another drawback, if you put up big photos then you disadvantage
> people who either have very small screens, low bandwidth or who
> are happy to see them a reasonable small size. It works like
> this: you can put up a massive pic and it will resize by the
> browser either with the style I gave you or in other ways (there
> are situations when you can base the width and height on ems
> according to the px proportions of the native size) not to badly
> if it is viewed with less pixels than native. But the big file
> still has to be downloaded to the punters machine, the poor
> fellow on dialup or small screen is getting more than he wants
> for hs purpose.

Agreed, but as I said, this is on a CD. I did make a version for the
web but for that I downsized to 1024X768.

>
> You can easily solve the problem of giving everyone what they
> want by ensuring you offer different sizes and making this plain.
> For big files, best to make it clear they can download it for
> printing (don't lay it into the page, except for a link to it).
> Thumbnails and moderate sizes for enlargements for the average
> we\bsite, say 100px square and 500px square as a rough guide.
> Anything much bigger, I would take heed of what mb says.
>
> --
> dorayme

[Back to original message]