I realize the original intention of the image-over-tile concept was to facilitate a header without any resolution limitation.
I'm just suggesting that I've used it another way than the 900&300 or 900&900 guideline, and thought the comment might add to the discussion. When I first started doing 1680 px headers, I found I couldn't get the jpeg file down below 40k without degrading the pic unacceptably. So I thought, why not capitalize on the image-over-tile concept to get a better quality full width image another way. And I'm aware of the limitation that it will look silly on screen resolutions over 1680, as I mentioned. On May 1, 11:57 pm, K3G <[email protected]> wrote: > the whole point of a repeating image is so that it scales to any > resolution, without looking stupid. I think you're kinda missing the > point mate > > On May 1, 10:53 pm, BlueQuoll <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I use an 1120 header image to keep file size down, with a 560 header > > tile made up of a left and right image 280 each. It gives me a 1680 > > header with left side of tile to the left and right side of tile to > > the right. > > > Would cause problems once screen exceeded 1680, but theres not too > > many of them around yet ;) > > > On Apr 17, 3:02 pm, AaronC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well put K3G, the idea has been to keep load times down. That is why > > > they tiled things the way they did. I found png to be to expensive > > > with themes, it really only looks cool while you are resizing the > > > window. The header layout works great for our monitors. Some > > > developers will follow the 900&300 pixel rule, I like to bend it a > > > bit, my last theme was 900&900, ohhhhhh. > > > > On Apr 8, 10:09 am, K3G <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > if you are clever with the way you design your images you shouldn't > > > > need transparency at all. theres some tips in the dev instructions > > > > that google provide on how to set up your tiled images to align with > > > > your centre image > > > > > On Apr 3, 5:36 am, Matthew Timpanelli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > at work i also have ie6. I don't really understand why. I guess i can > > > > > take > > > > > refuge in that fact that even if you are at work with ie6 no one uses > > > > > it for > > > > > browsing the internet. They save that for other browsers ;) > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Jay Barrow <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I've used pngs with transparency for my attrition. Haven't tried > > > > > > them for > > > > > > other artwork (header/footer/tiles). At work our PC's have IE6 > > > > > > installed, > > > > > > all 2,000+ of 'em (my full-time job is with a very large school > > > > > > district). > > > > > > I'm guessing there are a lot of other users out there that have to > > > > > > "put up" > > > > > > with IE6. Luckily I also have an iMac and Firefox, Chrome and > > > > > > Safari all > > > > > > render pngs correctly. > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM, psy-sci <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> Has anyone been designing stuff that would work in ie6 or has > > > > > >> everyone > > > > > >> given up on that. I'm trying to decide if i should use > > > > > >> transparency on > > > > > >> png files. I hate seeing that light blue/white background. I been > > > > > >> trying to do it with gifs but those look terribly gross. > > > > > > -- > > > > > Matthew Francis Timpanelli > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > 347.529.9769- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Themes API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-themes-api?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
