Html files and jpg files

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

How important is that the size of a jpg file is not very large if this file
is not on a html page?
You may have a look at
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/havet-sicilien.html
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bilder/tartabig.jpg
to understand what I mean

 

[Nico Schuyt]

How important is that the size of a jpg file is not very large if
this file is not on a html page?
You may have a look at
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/havet-sicilien.html
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bilder/tartabig.jpg
to understand what I mean

I'm not sure I understand
If the picture is not on a html page there's no navigation so why should you
do that?
If the size is very large, the size is adjusted to the size of the window in
IE
BTW the quality of your pictures is much better now! (But the layout still
doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling
Regards, Nico

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

I'm not sure I understand
If the picture is not on a html page there's no navigation so why should you
do that?
If the size is very large, the size is adjusted to the size of the window in
IE
BTW the quality of your pictures is much better now! (But the layout still
doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling
Regards, Nico

You click on a link on the page
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/havet-sicilien.html
in case you want to see a photo which is as large as the screen and may-be
print it.
What do you mean about the layout? I guess that it is formally correct but
may-be that you mean that you do not like the colours?
What about the menu?

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

window

You click on a link on the page
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/havet-sicilien.html
in case you want to see a photo which is as large as the screen and may-be
print it.

Well, that was the same as you meant before by claiming that the size is
adjusted to the size of the window
in IE. Actually, it is not as large as the screen as I wrote but almost,
Your definition was better.
The ones who are satisfied with the size on the html page
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/havet-sicilien.html
do not need to click to see another but they cannot print the picture in
this case, I suppose.

 

[Frogleg]

How important is that the size of a jpg file is not very large if this file
is not on a html page?
You may have a look at
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/havet-sicilien.html
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bilder/tartabig.jpg
to understand what I mean

If you want people to look at the pictures, and *don't* want to annoy
them, even a larger image shouldn't be *too* large.

I have a dialup connection and 17" (hah!) monitor at 800x600. Your big
picture took noticable time to load, and displays with both vertical
and horizontal scrollbars. That is, I can't actually see the whole
thing. Unless excruciating detail is *very* important, and presented
for a specific purpose, I'd scale down that photo to around 600x400
(as IE6 sweetly does) to both load faster and be seen on the most
common lower screen resolution.