Size of pictures with IE and other browsers

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

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

 

[Jim Higson]

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.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

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.


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

 

[David Dorward]

Do you mean a Javascript?

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

 

[Steve Pugh]

"Jim Higson" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
€>


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

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

No, I'm certain he doesn't


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

 

[Steve Pugh]

"Steve Pugh" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet


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

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

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?


Won't affect them at all.


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.


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

 

[Steve Pugh]

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.

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

 

[Jim Higson]

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.