| |
Steve Barile writes:
> After looking at Ben's pictures I had a question for
> everyone. I find it difficult to take in the entire picture
> when I have to scroll. I was wondering if anyone else had any
> feelings about what the optimal size pic is to post (on say,
> Brickshelf).
My preference is at least 400 pixels wide and at most 1024 wide. This
doesn't hold for wallpapers, of course. Perhaps there's a way that the
HTML could be modified to resize the images to the browser width if the
image is large? Of course this might present problems with blowing up
images instead of just shrinking them.
> Also, I just discovered that if you click on the image in
> Internet Exploder (oh, Explorer) it automatically resizes the
> image to fit the window.
Which is a setting I turn off...if I click on an image, I most likely
want to see it full size.
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht
bram@cwru.edu
www.bldesign.org
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
| The browser which comes with Windows XP does resize automacially when opening a *.jpg file, but when opening htm files it can be done I think.... I saw such a trick today at work. I can find it if you want so. I usually try to keep it 500 wide / 400 (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | image sizes on Brickshelf
|
| After looking at Ben's pictures I had a question for everyone. I find it difficult to take in the entire picture when I have to scroll. I was wondering if anyone else had any feelings about what the optimal size pic is to post (on say, Brickshelf). (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
