Subject:
|
Re: Thumbnails...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Jul 2000 13:15:41 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
MATTDM@MATTDM.ORGnomorespam
|
Viewed:
|
717 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Buiting <frank.buiting@infopulse.nl> wrote:
> So if you want to have a lot of pictures on one page, the 'width' attribute
> of the IMG tag works fine but AFAIK it doesn't save on downloading time.
Right. The width tag isn't really meant for scaling. It exists so that the
page layout engine can know how big a graphic is going to be before loading
it.
Making separate thumbnail images is The Right Way.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Thumbnails...
|
| (...) Agreed. Further, in your example, you're going from 640x480 to 320x240 (2:1)in your reduced image. Consider getting more aggressive in your size reduction, the point of a thumbnail is to have lots and lots of them on a page and then follow (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: Thumbnails...
|
| (...) There are really 2 reasons why you would never want the HTML engine to do your scaling. First, as has been stated, you have do download the whole image anyway. Second: Scaling w/o touchup can render some blurry/fuzzy and generally horrible (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thumbnails...
|
| (...) If you want to save downloading time for the page-viewer, then that is the best way to do it. Some people use the 'width' attribute to show a thumbnailed image, but it still downloads the full image and scales it down to match the width. So if (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
