Hi Dave Do I understand you correctly that somehow you like your borders just the way they are and would just change them for visitors? Maybe it's only a matter of taste but I can not follow you here. A height of 500 pixel for pictures is visible without scrolling on most screens with a minimum resolution of 1024x768. Of course you have to maximize your browser window first, but that's another strange decision and story for me.... ;-)
greetings Markus >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:03 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: PAW - "Clouds at Lindis Pass" >> >> >>On Jun 19, 2005, at 7:08 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: >> >>> Hi David >>> I like your picture but as I have written to you before would much >>> prefer to >>> see larger images than unbelievable thick borders. >>> Why ??? ;-) >> >>I'm still intending to look at those borders, when I get time. Maybe >>I'll put in some JavaScripted buttons to let you guys set the border >>width, then a button that tells me what size you ended up with ;) >> >>I made my files a bit small because I wanted them to be entirely >>visible in just about any resolution, without scrolling. For >>portrait orientation this is a real problem because there just aren't >>that many pixels available. >> >>The problem at the other end of the scale is that those of us with >>big, high-res screens end up with a picture that's a bit small. The >>smallish size actually doesn't bother me, but I am used to it and I'm >>one of those weirdos who doesn't maximise the browser window. >> >>At the moment the photo + big borders can fit into 1024x768 with all >>the overheads of the browser's title bar and big navigation buttons. >>If I shrink the borders I might be able to enlarge the photo a bit >>more... depending on whether I feel like supporting 800x600 which may >>be what I had in mind when I settled on my current file sizes. >> >>Cheers, >> >>- Dave >> >>http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ >> >> >>
