On Sun, 13 May 2012 23:00:10 +0100, Bjartur Thorlacius
<svartma...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've got a hunch I'm over-thinking this, but might
bandwidth-constrained users not prefer miniatures instead of huge
pixelated images?
Perhaps sometimes, but support for this would tie layout and bandwidth
together, and that complicates things. It's easier for authors if images
don't unexpectedly change displayed size.
I think we can assume that authors won't provide image in resolution that
is too low to be useful, so huge pixelation may not be a problem.
Authors can decrease image filesize not only by decreasing pixel size, but
also by using lossy image compression (lower JPEG quality, less colors in
PNG/GIF files).
For pure bandwidth optimisation on 100dpi displays (rather than avoiding
sending too large 200dpi images to users with 100dpi displays) an explicit
filesize information may be the solution:
<img srcset="q95percent.jpg size=100KB, q30percent.jpg size=20KB">
then UA can easily make decision how much bandwidth it can use (e.g. aim
to download any page in 5 seconds, so try to get image sizes to add up to
less than 5*network B/s).
--
regards, Kornel Lesiński
