Posted by dorayme on 01/15/07 21:11

In article <5127l9F1id512U1@mid.individual.net>,
"J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article "aa" <a@aa.com> wrote:
>
> >> I am
> >> not sure about fluid design for I use composite pictures which are
> >> assembled
> >> from several small fragmets...
> > Your website is basically pictures? You are set on this course?
> > Let me not judge that I be not judged.
> >
> > Look into specifying all your widths for all the pics in % terms
> > in the css only (not the html).
> >
> I'm not as much for this solution
>

Of course you are right. Neither am I. It is a bad idea to be
making a website based on sliced up pics in the first place. But
the point is this, if you are set on doing this, there are going
to be a fair number of disadvantages. Either for you to make
various websites for various resolutions and somehow sniff them
out to apply the appropriate or else to cause some unnecessary
download pain to those with small/low res screens. The keyword
here is unnecessary. One should be making pics reasonably quick
to load even for a 19" screen.

Browsers scale pics down with reasonable quality and (along with
just about everything else but an earthling artist) do a lousy
job of scaling up many pics (hard to get something out of
nothing, easy to leave out some from more). Having said this,
Safari and FF and some other browsers (at least on Macs) do a
good job if the emming or %ing is set well in the first place,
but is rather disappointing in IE on a Winbox last time I looked.

> Say your images are or high quality/resolution, even if the browser window
> is small, the amount of data sent is the same, still many in US seems to use
> modems, no gain for them of having a small resolution.
>
> Say your images are of low quality/resolution, when your browser window is
> big, the images are scaled up and looking really crappy.
>
> In this case I would rather have two different setups of images, yes it's
> more
> work, but you make things look okey and you get more speed when getting to
> "low quality" version of the site.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]