Brion Vibber wrote: > It looked good at that size. :)
On your monitor maybe. Unfortunately, basing sizes on absolute pixel counts makes no sense in todays computer world. When (almost) everyone used 640x480 monitors, fixed sizes were more reasonable. However, with everything from low-res large screens to very-high-res small screens or high-res big to low-res small, fixed image sizes suck. If a single number was to be used, scaling it to the width as a percentage might be better. However, when I put any images into a wiki page, I make sure it uses the user default - set in preferences. It still forces a fixed width, but at least a fixed width that the user can choose to match their screen size (within limits - perhaps instead of allowing the user to select from a small set of fixed values, an input field could be provided so they could choose any value). I find that a single parameter (e.g. width) works reasonably for most images regardless of orientation (landscape, portrait). Only those with extreme aspect ratios are problematic. I like the idea of having images characterized on upload and then have parameters attached that could map to CSS as HWL has suggested. But not if the resulting CSS uses a fixed pixel size. If the CSS is modified on the fly to include the user's chosen size that would be better. Mike _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
