Size of pictures with IE and other browsers

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Luigi Donatello Asero, Nov 7, 2004.

  1. On the page http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/test.html
    I have a picture which you can enlarge if you click on
    "Här kan du se ett större bild"
    You open this:

    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bilder/0001_0003.jpg
    The picture is large and its size is adapted to the one of the screen if you
    use IE as far as I understand.
    But what happens with other browsers?
    Is it better that I resize its width to 640 pixels?

    -- Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    http://www.italymap.dk/
    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/presentartiklar.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Nov 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Jim Higson Guest

    Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:

    > On the page http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/test.html
    > I have a picture which you can enlarge if you click on
    > "Här kan du se ett större bild"
    > You open this:
    >
    > http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bilder/0001_0003.jpg
    > The picture is large and its size is adapted to the one of the screen if
    > you use IE as far as I understand.
    > But what happens with other browsers?


    Depends on the browser.

    Gecko (as used by moz et al) might resize it, but you might consider it a
    waste of bandwidth to download a large image an then only display every x
    pixels.
    The quality of the resizing could be better if you do it yourself in
    imagemagick or whatever.

    > Is it better that I resize its width to 640 pixels?


    800 wide isn't too bad. Very few people have monitors less than 800 pixels
    wide. It isn't that bad if a small percent of people to have to scroll
    sideways to view an image.

    You could put up small/medium/large versions at, say, 640, 1024 and 1600
    pixels, the images would be easy to create if you scripted it.
     
    Jim Higson, Nov 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Jim Higson" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    > Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
    >
    > > On the page http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/test.html
    > > I have a picture which you can enlarge if you click on
    > > "Hr kan du se ett st rre bild"
    > > You open this:
    > >
    > > http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bilder/0001_0003.jpg
    > > The picture is large and its size is adapted to the one of the screen if
    > > you use IE as far as I understand.
    > > But what happens with other browsers?

    >
    > Depends on the browser.
    >
    > Gecko (as used by moz et al) might resize it, but you might consider it a
    > waste of bandwidth to download a large image an then only display every x
    > pixels.
    > The quality of the resizing could be better if you do it yourself in
    > imagemagick or whatever.
    >
    > > Is it better that I resize its width to 640 pixels?

    >
    > 800 wide isn't too bad. Very few people have monitors less than 800 pixels
    > wide. It isn't that bad if a small percent of people to have to scroll
    > sideways to view an image.
    >
    > You could put up small/medium/large versions at, say, 640, 1024 and 1600
    > pixels, the images would be easy to create if you scripted it.



    Do you mean a Javascript?
    Why should I need to use a script to create a small, a mediume and a large
    version?
    Javascript could be disabled at the user´s browser, couldn´t it be?

    -- Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    http://www.italymap.dk/
    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/inlamning-av-formedlingsuppdraget.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Nov 7, 2004
    #3
  4. Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
    >> You could put up small/medium/large versions at, say, 640, 1024 and 1600
    >> pixels, the images would be easy to create if you scripted it.


    > Do you mean a Javascript?


    Probably not. A server side (or preprecessing) script could resize the
    image. My perference would be Perl with PerlMagick.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Nov 8, 2004
    #4
  5. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Steve Pugh Guest

    On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:47:59 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
    <> wrote:
    >"Jim Higson" <> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:...
    >€>
    >> You could put up small/medium/large versions at, say, 640, 1024 and 1600
    >> pixels, the images would be easy to create if you scripted it.

    >
    >
    >Do you mean a Javascript?


    No, I'm certain he doesn't

    >Why should I need to use a script to create a small, a mediume and a large
    >version?


    Say you have 100 images sitting on your hard drive. You want to put
    three sizes of each of them on your web site. You could resize each
    one of them three times and save three hundred images. Or you could
    write a little script that would do all that for you.

    >Javascript could be disabled at the user´s browser, couldn´t it be?


    The only place the script (and it wouldn't be JavaScript) would run
    would be on your computer.

    Or, if you have some sort of content management system you could add a
    script to that so that when you upload an image to your server, the
    server runs a script to create the three sizes and link to them from
    the apropriate page.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Nov 8, 2004
    #5
  6. "Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    > On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:47:59 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
    > <> wrote:
    > >"Jim Higson" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > >news:...
    > >?>
    > >> You could put up small/medium/large versions at, say, 640, 1024 and

    1600
    > >> pixels, the images would be easy to create if you scripted it.

    > >
    > >
    > >Do you mean a Javascript?

    >
    > No, I'm certain he doesn't
    >
    > >Why should I need to use a script to create a small, a mediume and a

    large
    > >version?

    >
    > Say you have 100 images sitting on your hard drive. You want to put
    > three sizes of each of them on your web site. You could resize each
    > one of them three times and save three hundred images. Or you could
    > write a little script that would do all that for you.



    It may speed up the process but it sounds as it is not something which is
    needed.
    What about the search engines?
    If the different images should be created dinamically, the robots could not
    index the pages where they are, could they?
    On this subject do you think I should create a html page for each version of
    the pictures to let the search engines index them?
    Something like http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/test3.html
    or may-be without menu

    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/test4.html


    -- Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    http://www.italymap.dk/
    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/presentartiklar.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Nov 8, 2004
    #6
  7. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Steve Pugh Guest

    On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:14:18 GMT, Luigi Donatello Asero
    <> wrote:
    > "Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:...


    >> Say you have 100 images sitting on your hard drive. You want to put
    >> three sizes of each of them on your web site. You could resize each
    >> one of them three times and save three hundred images. Or you could
    >> write a little script that would do all that for you.

    >
    > It may speed up the process but it sounds as it is not something which
    > is needed.


    It's not needed. But it can save time and money. How many images do you
    have? How often will you add new images? How much do you enjoy resizing
    images?

    > What about the search engines?


    Won't affect them at all.

    > If the different images should be created dinamically, the robots could
    > not index the pages where they are, could they?


    Search engines can index dynamically created pages.

    But I described a process that would run on your desktop - you would still
    upload static images and HTML pages exactly as before. I only mentioned
    dynamically generated pages as an afterthought.

    > On this subject do you think I should create a html page for each
    > version of the pictures to let the search engines index them?


    If you want to embed the image in a page instead of just linking to it
    directrly then go ahead and do it. But don't do it just for the search
    engines. Multiple pages with the same text content, only differing in
    having a different image in them is not going to make a search engine
    happy.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Nov 8, 2004
    #7
  8. "Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:eek:psg5hbcr406el5p@stevepughlaptop...
    > On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:14:18 GMT, Luigi Donatello Asero
    > <> wrote:
    > > "Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > > news:...

    >
    > >> Say you have 100 images sitting on your hard drive. You want to put
    > >> three sizes of each of them on your web site. You could resize each
    > >> one of them three times and save three hundred images. Or you could
    > >> write a little script that would do all that for you.

    > >
    > > It may speed up the process but it sounds as it is not something which
    > > is needed.

    >
    > It's not needed. But it can save time and money. How many images do you
    > have? How often will you add new images? How much do you enjoy resizing
    > images?
    >
    > > What about the search engines?

    >
    > Won't affect them at all.
    >
    > > If the different images should be created dinamically, the robots could
    > > not index the pages where they are, could they?

    >
    > Search engines can index dynamically created pages.


    Are you sure about that?
    Can you give me an example?
    I may be wrong but I think I have read something different in this NG in the
    past.

    > But I described a process that would run on your desktop - you would still
    > upload static images and HTML pages exactly as before. I only mentioned
    > dynamically generated pages as an afterthought.
    >
    > > On this subject do you think I should create a html page for each
    > > version of the pictures to let the search engines index them?

    >
    > If you want to embed the image in a page instead of just linking to it
    > directrly then go ahead and do it. But don't do it just for the search
    > engines. Multiple pages with the same text content, only differing in
    > having a different image in them is not going to make a search engine
    > happy.


    Either the images are good for something and the search engines share this
    opinion or
    the images are not useful for anything and in this case why should I create
    them?


    -- Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    http://www.italymap.dk/
    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/presentartiklar.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Nov 8, 2004
    #8
  9. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Steve Pugh Guest

    On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:46:02 GMT, Luigi Donatello Asero
    <> wrote:
    > "Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:eek:psg5hbcr406el5p@stevepughlaptop...
    >> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:14:18 GMT, Luigi Donatello Asero
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > What about the search engines?

    >>
    >> Won't affect them at all.
    >>
    >> > If the different images should be created dinamically, the robots >

    >> could not index the pages where they are, could they?
    >>
    >> Search engines can index dynamically created pages.

    >
    > Are you sure about that?
    > Can you give me an example?


    Sure, search for the phrase "very true things". Second hit is my blog
    which is a dynamic site. Search for any book title and see if the relevant
    Amazon page comes up on the first page or two of results. The Amazon sites
    are all dynamic.

    > I may be wrong but I think I have read something different in this NG in
    > the past.


    Years ago it was the case that search engines didn't like certain types of
    URLs (e.g. those that contained /cgi/) as they didn't want to index pages
    that might not be the same, or even exist, when users arrived there. These
    days so many sites, including many of the most useful ones, are dynamic
    that this policy would make search engines next to useless.

    >> > On this subject do you think I should create a html page for each
    >> > version of the pictures to let the search engines index them?

    >>
    >> If you want to embed the image in a page instead of just linking to it
    >> directrly then go ahead and do it. But don't do it just for the search
    >> engines. Multiple pages with the same text content, only differing in
    >> having a different image in them is not going to make a search engine
    >> happy.

    >
    > Either the images are good for something and the search engines share
    > this opinion or the images are not useful for anything and in this case
    > why should I create them?


    Search engines don't look at the images. Even search engines like
    http://images.google.com/ decide how to index the image based on the file
    name and surrounding text. So your pages will be virtually identical
    because they will contain the same text, only differing in the filename of
    one single image. The search engines may penalise you for having identical
    pages on your site.

    Forget about search engines for a moment. Do your images need extra
    explanatory text beyond what is on the page that links to them? If they
    do, then embed the images in new pages. If they don't, then don't bother.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Nov 8, 2004
    #9
  10. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Jim Higson Guest


    > Years ago it was the case that search engines didn't like certain types of
    > URLs (e.g. those that contained /cgi/) as they didn't want to index pages
    > that might not be the same, or even exist, when users arrived there. These
    > days so many sites, including many of the most useful ones, are dynamic
    > that this policy would make search engines next to useless.


    Luigi:

    I think you are confusing dynamic html (ie DHTML) with dynamically generated
    HTML (ie CGI). Although these have confusingly similar names, they are very
    different things. See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHTML
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Gateway_Interface

    Basically, scripting can just be used to generate different sized images and
    is unavoidable if you have a decent number and value your time :)

    The other night I made thumbnails for about 200 images on a static site I
    generate from a script, it took few seconds of my time (I left the computer
    to it while I make some tea) versus probably a few days if done by hand.

    The browser (and search engines) doesn't care how the image was generated,
    only that it is a valid jpg, png, gif etc.
     
    Jim Higson, Nov 8, 2004
    #10
    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. local suburban hero

    HTML, XML and Mozillar and other NON IE browsers

    local suburban hero, Jun 7, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    431
    local suburban hero
    Jun 11, 2004
  2. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Size of the pictures

    Luigi Donatello Asero, Sep 17, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    425
    dorayme
    Feb 18, 2007
  3. Benny Ng
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    421
    Edwin Knoppert
    Nov 21, 2006
  4. El Kabong

    Browsers, browsers! Quo vadis?

    El Kabong, May 11, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    944
    dorayme
    May 13, 2007
  5. Martin Raychev
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    305
    Alvin Bruney [MVP]
    Mar 2, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page