| |
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 high to meet all screen resolutions,
and a file small size so it doesnt take 100+ years to load it. I usualy use
PSP6 for resizing
S.
Bram Lambrecht <bram@cwru.edu> wrote in message
news:000501c1a827$067fe340$b7fb1681@bl...
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | RE: image sizes on 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
