Picture size

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jim S, Jan 18, 2008.

  1. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    Not strictly an HTML question, but what is the accepted size of graphics on
    a website? I have kept mine to a maximum of 610 x 400 px knowing that some
    people will still view on 800 x 600 screens with all manner of toolbars.
    However they look better when bigger.
    I am tempted to go bigger for those of us on 1024 x 768 or more.
    Is there an accepted convention for this or does everyone do their own
    thing?
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
    Jim S, Jan 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jim S

    Paul Guest

    "Jim S" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:1xozv5n450bq0$...
    > Not strictly an HTML question, but what is the accepted size of graphics
    > on
    > a website? I have kept mine to a maximum of 610 x 400 px knowing that some
    > people will still view on 800 x 600 screens with all manner of toolbars.
    > However they look better when bigger.
    > I am tempted to go bigger for those of us on 1024 x 768 or more.
    > Is there an accepted convention for this or does everyone do their own
    > thing?


    In my website I have choosen having thumbs 250 or 350 px large, and "great"
    images 800 px large.
    The important thing is their "weight" to reduce downloading time. I have
    optimized it in no more than about 10 KB and about 70KB each.
    Using these values, download speed is rather high.
    Many times it is necessary compressing images with a minimun loss of
    quality. To do this I use ACDSee image viewer, that has this capability.
    Paul
    --
    http://www.tortebomboniere.com/bomboniere/favourcake01.html
    Paul, Jan 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jim S

    mbstevens Guest

    Jim S wrote:
    > Not strictly an HTML question, but what is the accepted size of graphics on
    > a website? I have kept mine to a maximum of 610 x 400 px knowing that some
    > people will still view on 800 x 600 screens with all manner of toolbars.
    > However they look better when bigger.
    > I am tempted to go bigger for those of us on 1024 x 768 or more.
    > Is there an accepted convention for this or does everyone do their own
    > thing?


    You can use thumbnail image links
    that use actually tiny images (as opposed to displaying
    the full sized images small) and allow the visitor
    to choose only images wanted by clicking through.
    But you are stuck with choosing the size of the eventual
    enlargement for the visitor.

    For really big enlargements I would
    show a tiny image associated with several standard links to
    different sized enlargements. Each link should suggest
    the size of the enlargement in its text. The visitor can
    choose which size to use.
    --
    mbstevens
    http://www.mbstevens.com/howtothumb
    http://www.mbstevens.com/xpx/xpxnojava.html
    mbstevens, Jan 18, 2008
    #3
  4. Jim S

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 18 Jan, 12:50, Jim S <> wrote:
    > Not strictly an HTML question, but what is the accepted size of graphics on
    > a website?


    "Big enough to be useful." There's no longer any need to constrain
    photograph images size-wise solely for technical reasons. If you need
    it 800px wide to see it, then use 800px width. Don't think that
    "bandwidth" requires everything to be down-sized to under 200px, just
    to control download times.

    If you want thumbnails for a gallery, consider 200px width and four or
    five across the screen, rather than an old approach of 100px or less.
    Now you can at least see what the things are!

    Certainly abandon <table> for a thumbnail gallery in favour of floated
    <div> around each image/caption group. This permits big thumbnails on
    small screens, and if the screen width doesn't permit many across the
    screen, then it re-flows them to put fewer on each row.

    All users' displays (for practical values of "all") are between 1000
    and 2000 px wide. The few smaller than this can cope with some
    sideways scrolling and a competent fluid design. Anything bigger than
    this is either wall-mounted rather than a desktop, or is on multiple
    screens. Either of these require different thinking from the single-
    screen at arms' length model.

    Phones are easy. Their networks will transcode images on the fly.

    The remaining awkward clients are palmtops (my Nokia 770) etc. These
    are around 600x200 in size and don't generally connect through a
    transcoding network proxy. OTOH, I don't _expect_ this sort of ultra-
    portable device to be convenient to use for huge images. However one
    of my main uses for it is viewing >1000px-wide images (references on
    silver hallmarks or signatures, from within auction and sale rooms),
    so don't rule this out completely! Sometimes awkward scrolling is the
    right behaviour, better than preventing access altogether.

    A very good approach (requiring significant effort though) is that
    used by wikipedia, wikicommons and mediawiki for handling images.
    They're uploaded in any size up to "vast" (look at the Torre del
    Acqua, Barcelona photo on Wikicommons) and the site publishing engine
    re-sizes them as necessary. The size served depends on the context, so
    a "thumb" or a "gallery" image on an article page is automatically
    smaller than the image's own page. The size for each of these contexts
    is also defaulted to a user-specific setting, which is adjustable for
    large or small preferences.
    Andy Dingley, Jan 18, 2008
    #4
  5. Jim S

    Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:50:30
    GMT Jim S scribed:

    > Not strictly an HTML question, but what is the accepted size of
    > graphics on a website? I have kept mine to a maximum of 610 x 400 px
    > knowing that some people will still view on 800 x 600 screens with all
    > manner of toolbars. However they look better when bigger.
    > I am tempted to go bigger for those of us on 1024 x 768 or more.
    > Is there an accepted convention for this or does everyone do their own
    > thing?


    Most mod browsers can be set to adjust displayed image size to fit the
    viewport. Thumbnails should be big enough to see at higher resolutions and
    small enough in filesize to download quickly. There is no hard-and-fast
    "rule" per se, but if you lack common sense you will commonly have trouble.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Riches are their own reward.
    Neredbojias, Jan 18, 2008
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stefan Mueller
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    7,408
    Stefan Mueller
    Jun 16, 2006
  2. Jason Cavett

    Preferred Size, Minimum Size, Size

    Jason Cavett, May 23, 2008, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    12,504
    Michael Jung
    May 25, 2008
  3. Bill Mundy

    Picture size adjusting with browser size

    Bill Mundy, Jul 6, 2003, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    92
    Bill Mundy
    Jul 6, 2003
  4. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,210
    Mick White
    Apr 19, 2005
  5. jodleren

    Getting picture size/setting window size

    jodleren, Feb 14, 2007, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    141
    jodleren
    Feb 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page