image dependant on resolution

[Michael Tonelli]

When creating a web site, taking into consideration different resolutions,
which method is best...

- percentage as with CSS styling or
- percentages in the width and height attributes of the IMG tag or
- some bit of code that determines the screen height and width and displays
the appropriate image for that users resolution setting.
- something else I haven't mentioned?

The main page of the site is an image, well mostly an image, with just a few
links (horizontally) at the bottom.
This should all fit into one page.

Is there an industry standard for this task?

Thanks,
Michael

 

[Mark Parnell]

When creating a web site, taking into consideration different resolutions,

Why? The visitor's screen resolution is irrelevant. It's their available
canvas that matters, and you have no way of knowing what that is.

which method is best...
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

- percentage as with CSS styling or

For an image? No. Browsers scale images terribly.

- percentages in the width and height attributes of the IMG tag or

As above.

- some bit of code that determines the screen height and width and displays
the appropriate image for that users resolution setting.

Again, resolution is irrelevant. You have no way of knowing their
available canvas, and there is an almost infinite number of possible
canvas areas.

- something else I haven't mentioned?

If your design needs something like that, then your design is broken.
You need to rethink it.

The main page of the site is an image, well mostly an image, with just a few
links (horizontally) at the bottom.

You definitely need to rethink the design. Where's the actual content?

Is there an industry standard for this task?

Not as such. Most sites are fixed width. :-(

 

[Karl Groves]

When creating a web site, taking into consideration different resolutions,
which method is best...

Understanding that you cannot predict, detect, or control the visible area
of the user's browser.
Accept it and move on to more important concerns.

-Karl

 

[Dave Patton]

When creating a web site, taking into consideration different
resolutions

You should stop right there and take into consideration
what makes for good website design....

The main page of the site is an image, well mostly an image, with just
a few links (horizontally) at the bottom.

....and that certainly isn't an example of good design.

Stop and think for a minute. Turn off image loading in
your browser and reload the page - is it what you want
site visitors to "see"?. Do you realise that search engines
treat site just this way? Do you realise that search engines
are amongst your most important visitors?

 

[Toby Inkster]

- something else I haven't mentioned?

sed -ir "s/width/schmidth/;s/height/schmeight/" *

 

[jake]

Why? The visitor's screen resolution is irrelevant. It's their available
canvas that matters, and you have no way of knowing what that is.


For an image? No. Browsers scale images terribly.


As above.

[snip]

Depends.

Browsers do a pretty good job of displaying images that they have
automatically re-scaled *down* to fit the canvas. The problem occurs
when the browser has to display an image that has to be re-scaled *up*
at which time (taking a JPEG file as an example) it begins to show the
various blocking artifacts inherent in the process.

This means that to cater for most ('most' -- not 'all) resolutions the
image has to be unusually large, although some of this can be
compensated for by higher compression.

So, I would say that it's a fairly practical way of making your images
scale according to the browser window size providing each image takes up
a fairly small percentage of the available area.

However, the OP is suggesting that the image would take up so most of
the page -- so I guess it wouldn't be a suitable technique in this case.

Back to the drawing board.

regards.

 

[Andy Dingley]

When creating a web site, taking into consideration different resolutions,
which method is best...

Think of the usage model of the image, then supply something
appropriate to that.
Is this a low-res image for general web use, a thumbnail that's
especially small because it's just a nav item, a high-res image, or a
print-res image ?

Once you've identified this role, then you can see about offering it
to the user. There's not really that much influence that the browser
window size has on an appropriate size here - I can see a photograph
and identify its content at a size that's fairly independent of how I
size my browser window. If I want a silly-large image, then I'm happy
to click something to select it deliberately. This is one of the
(fairly rare) cases where pop-up windows may be an appropriate
feature.

If you do printing, and you set up screen/print-res images with a
linked click-through, then use CSS so that it's only the big one that
prints.

If you're dead set on sending image sizes relative to the window, then
do it server-side and use images that you pre-processed at leisure
(on-the-fly is poor quality and processor hungry). You have to work
very hard to make this really good, or else it's worse than not trying
it at all. It's reasonable to make an image gallery that selects a
varying number of thumbnails for the nav bar, depending on window
size, but changing their actual size is definitely risky territory.

And never make the mistake that large screens imply large windows.

 

[Webcastmaker]

Understanding that you cannot predict, detect, or control the visible area
of the user's browser.

Your right, on a Web site you can't, but with a Web application
(note, I am emphasizing other uses of the web) you can set
requirements. WebcastMaker, Webex, MS Live-meating, and thousands
other do so all the time.

Many times these Web applications are a part of the Web site. For
example, www.webentations.com does not requite Flash or Javascript,
or need to be a specific size, but the application served from the
site, has requirements. If you want to use the application, you have
to have the required settings and software (Flash, Microsoft media
player), and Javascript turned on.

But in the case of a Web application, it is fine to make these
requirements.

 

[Michael Tonelli]

As much as I don't like accepting your answer, I am coming to this
understanding.

 

[Karl Groves]

As much as I don't like accepting your answer, I am coming to this
understanding.

Sometimes the answer isn't what we want, but what we need.
;-)

-Karl

 

[Michael Tonelli]

You should stop right there and take into consideration
what makes for good website design....


...and that certainly isn't an example of good design.

Programmers and the like get a bad rap for being pocket-protector geeks.
This really isn't true anymore; however, I'm sure you fit nicely into that
niche.

You consider good web design, that's not my issue, I was looking to
accomplish one task, which is definitely beyond your scope. My post was made
simple, so that it was easily understood, so that some idiot wouldn't try to
confuse the issue. The main page layout wasn't the issue nor was it inferred
to be, it was fictitious so that any response would have no choice but to
address the topic - hell, if this were a trap, you fell right in. Damn I get
tired of those who really 'think' they know something.

Some of the largest companies in the world begin their site with a
flashMovie (nothing more), you obviously can't think outside of the ho-hum
frame sites that you were taught many years back. I rarely post to this
group (not much need) but when I do, I always get some quality feedback, and
always, that one ostrich.

Do you realise that search engines
are amongst your most important visitors?

You really do have a narrow, lacking knowledge. I viewed your site, figures.
Not all sites are business sites, and when considering a business site,
you're definitely not the counsultant. Don't respond to posts that refer to
something outside of text and text links, you haven't a clue.

I did get my solution, works perfectly, no matter the resolution or the
available area of the browser window.

Wasn't it enough that you got your ass kicked in school all the time.You
didn't answer any questions, and offered blather laced amongst falsehoods -
I'll consider you a troll. One of the few who give Canada a bad name.

I'll promptly add you to the blocked list

 

[Andy Dingley]

I'll promptly add you to the blocked list

Yes, but you're the guy who began by asking whether percentage-sized
CSS was the way to deal with dynamic image sizing. Now naive doesn't
always imply stupid, but it's a bit hard to make the leap from dumb
questions to getting stroppy with other posters in a single thread.

KF me too if you wish. I don't care. One thing my life really doesn't
lack is more dumb web coders.