Posted by dorayme on 10/27/06 02:51

In article <454164F1.E4E42030@sendspamhere.com>,
Don <me@sendspamhere.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> >

I have forgotten all details of the thread but many people cannot
spare 1024 x 768 and so this sounds too big to me.

> > 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.
> >

I still think this last bit of advice is worth noting. (In fact,
when I re-read it, a little tear came into my eye at its succinct
beauty and sense)

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]