Re: [NTO] image overflow
- I'm on board with these suggestions as well. I have actually built a
clip in the past to build links from my thumbs to the "bigger" images.
Haven't got a copy handy, but easily can be done. I seldom put up a
picture larger than 800px. Just isn't necessary.
One of the things I like about firefox is no matter how big you make
your picture it will autosize to the screen and you can zoom if you
want. Technology is improving and most scalings are done well, but do
your viewers a favor and give a real thumbnail view first.
Mike Breiding - Morgantown WV wrote:
> Axel Berger wrote:
>> stephen@dennisandst ephen.com <mailto:stephen%40dennisandstephen.com> wrote:
>> > Sorry for not giving you the quick fix, (it's been a looooong day)
>> > <img src="photo0000013. jpg" style="width: 75%" />
>> Don't! Repeat: Do not! For one thing people will have to load down a far bigger picture than
>> they get to see.
- Greg Chapman wrote:
> Someone will have to tell me exactly how those figures areThe main thing is that all that asks the wrong question. What one really
> derived and whether they have any meaning in the modern world.
needs to know ist what the window dimensions are, the screen is beside
the point. There even are people running a virtual screen several times
the size of the physical one so they can scroll between their windows or
for a two-screen setup. Imagine their joy, when some script opens a
window at full screen and without resize.
Sadly it is far easier to ask for the screen dimensions than the window
ones, which are one the things older IE versions did differently from
do things that are wrong for the window. Zooming in new IE and Opera
versions makes things even more difficult but manageable.