Michael Daly wrote: > 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.
Since the rest of the computer's UI is based on fixed pixel sizes too, I'm afraid you're pretty much stuck. ;) HTML/CSS pixels are actually not strictly related to device pixels -- rather they have a defined relation to CSS inches. The device pixels will depend on the browser's zoom setting, whether your system has been configured for super-high-resolution display, whether you're on screen or printing, etc. "Pixels" on the web refer to a size range which is _roughly_ similar on most displays, and very large screens will usually be showing multiple windows which are closer to the size of smaller screens. Trying to make your images different sizes makes no sense at all in these cases and would actually be hugely counterproductive. > 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. This is not my experience; simply flipping between portrait and landscape of a typical photo will change your final size by a hugely visible margin, and anything slightly more extreme such as a human-shaped cutout or a panoramic view or widescreen screenshot becomes completely inappropriate to work with. -- brion _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
