Thumbnail size

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Samuel van Laere, Feb 24, 2007.

  1. Perhaps i'm asking to much tonight :)
    But is there any size considered a good general size
    for thumbnails?

    Cheers,
    Sam
     
    Samuel van Laere, Feb 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Samuel van Laere

    dorayme Guest

    In article <64680$45e0b4af$d52e1f47$>,
    "Samuel van Laere" <webklunsATgmail.com> wrote:

    > Perhaps i'm asking to much tonight :)
    > But is there any size considered a good general size
    > for thumbnails?
    >


    It depends to some extent on the situation. But, imo, thumbnails
    the size of thumbs are almost useless, barely better than a plain
    text link in giving information (as distinct to decoration) to
    most people to base a decision to click or not to click.

    Best is to make the thumbnails rather bigger than the traditional
    tiny size so that viewers can truly decide if they want to see
    bigger. It should be a size in many situations that might even
    satisfy a viewer's appetitite sufficiently that they do not want
    to click to bigger

    <http://tvrs.org.au/gallery/gallery.html>

    is the sort of thing I have in mind as being reasonable.

    perhaps

    <http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/pendulum/publications.html>

    is a bit too big in the context.

    while something like, to take something at random almost:

    <http://hubblesite.org/gallery/>

    on the left under heading "Hubble Images", is too small for
    informed judgment.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 24, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Samuel van Laere

    Neredbojias Guest

    On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:57:05 GMT Samuel van Laere scribed:

    > Perhaps i'm asking to much tonight :)
    > But is there any size considered a good general size
    > for thumbnails?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Sam
    >
    >


    Well, for portrait orientation, I recommend 267 x 400 pixels. Anything
    smaller obscures the "warts-and-all" principle.

    --
    Neredbojias
    He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
     
    Neredbojias, Feb 25, 2007
    #3
  4. Thanks dorayme,

    I suppose that this will be just fine:
    http://www.oukje.nl/index/pagina/13
    But I would like to allow more then just two thumbnails in a row,
    while allowing it to adjust to the width of the browser window.
    If I remember correctly there's some CSS stuff
    thats about liquid photo gallary's?
    google didn't find it for me.

    Anyone with a example of CSS doing liquid photo gallary's?

    Cheers,
    Sam
     
    Samuel van Laere, Feb 26, 2007
    #4
  5. Samuel van Laere

    dorayme Guest

    In article <65eb3$45e334f9$d52e1f47$>,
    "Samuel van Laere" <webklunsATgmail.com> wrote:

    > Thanks dorayme,
    >
    > I suppose that this will be just fine:
    > http://www.oukje.nl/index/pagina/13
    > But I would like to allow more then just two thumbnails in a row,
    > while allowing it to adjust to the width of the browser window.
    > If I remember correctly there's some CSS stuff
    > thats about liquid photo gallary's?
    > google didn't find it for me.
    >
    > Anyone with a example of CSS doing liquid photo gallary's?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Sam


    It looks nice your page. I have not looked at your code. About
    liquid layout of thumbs... there is better but you can take a
    look at the stuff at

    <http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/galleryTemplate/galleryD
    ivd.html>

    for ideas.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 26, 2007
    #5
  6. Samuel van Laere

    Paul Guest

    "Samuel van Laere" <webklunsATgmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:65eb3$45e334f9$d52e1f47$...
    > Thanks dorayme,
    >
    > I suppose that this will be just fine:
    > http://www.oukje.nl/index/pagina/13
    > But I would like to allow more then just two thumbnails in a row,
    > while allowing it to adjust to the width of the browser window.


    In my website http://www.tortebomboniere.com/bomboniere/favourcake01.html I
    have put many thumbnails.
    Dimensions of each of them is 150 x 150 pixel and about 5KB.
    Dimension in pixel is enough great to give many informations to the
    visitors, and file dimension is enough low to have high speed of download as
    you can see.
    I have compressed thumbnails images using ACDSee. It' s easy and very fast.
    Paul (from Italy)
     
    Paul, Feb 28, 2007
    #6
  7. Samuel van Laere

    dorayme Guest

    In article <45e56746$0$7739$>,
    "Paul" <> wrote:

    > "Samuel van Laere" <webklunsATgmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
    > news:65eb3$45e334f9$d52e1f47$...
    > > Thanks dorayme,
    > >
    > > I suppose that this will be just fine:
    > > http://www.oukje.nl/index/pagina/13
    > > But I would like to allow more then just two thumbnails in a row,
    > > while allowing it to adjust to the width of the browser window.

    >
    > In my website http://www.tortebomboniere.com/bomboniere/favourcake01.html I
    > have put many thumbnails.
    > Dimensions of each of them is 150 x 150 pixel and about 5KB.
    > Dimension in pixel is enough great to give many informations to the
    > visitors, and file dimension is enough low to have high speed of download as
    > you can see.
    > I have compressed thumbnails images using ACDSee. It' s easy and very fast.
    > Paul (from Italy)


    The thumbnail sizes are fine here for your purposes. But there is
    trouble with your design. For a start, look at what happens to
    your last two pics in the row under "Quick search and new items
    for favors and gifts in following ceremonies: " at 800px wide
    browser window.

    I will let you work out the trouble, here is a hint though, it
    starts around about:

    html > body > center > center > center > center > table > tbody >
    tr > td

    (Luigi... Luigi... is that you Luigi?)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 28, 2007
    #7
  8. Samuel van Laere

    mbstevens Guest

    On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:57:05 +0100, Samuel van Laere wrote:

    > Perhaps i'm asking to much tonight :)
    > But is there any size considered a good general size
    > for thumbnails?


    You want the thumbnail to be big enough to allow the visitor to decide
    whether she wants to click through to the enlargement -- some images
    require larger thumbnails than others, and a human choice is required. You
    also don't want to make the thumbnail too large, because this will slow
    download time.

    A detail might be enough.
    Sometimes it is effective to use a detail from a larger image
    instead of a thumbnail of the entire image. Use the part of the
    image that conveys the most useful information.
    --
    mbstevens
    http://www.mbstevens.com/howtothumb/index.html
     
    mbstevens, Mar 1, 2007
    #8
  9. Samuel van Laere

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    mbstevens <> wrote:

    > Sometimes it is effective to use a detail from a larger image
    > instead of a thumbnail of the entire image. Use the part of the
    > image that conveys the most useful information.


    I must remember to include this in my spiels about thumbnails as
    it is a very good point (long ago acknowledged by me to you if
    you recall)

    [Hey mb, I saw an excellent film last night, new one, something
    that absolutely suited me, no violence, nice, clever: Stranger
    then Fiction. Try it. <g>]

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 1, 2007
    #9
  10. Samuel van Laere

    mbstevens Guest

    On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:03:08 +1100, dorayme wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > mbstevens <> wrote:
    >
    >> Sometimes it is effective to use a detail from a larger image
    >> instead of a thumbnail of the entire image. Use the part of the
    >> image that conveys the most useful information.

    >
    > I must remember to include this in my spiels about thumbnails as
    > it is a very good point (long ago acknowledged by me to you if
    > you recall)


    Neilsen has more than I do to say about it:
    http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9611.html

    >
    > [Hey mb, I saw an excellent film last night, new one, something
    > that absolutely suited me, no violence, nice, clever: Stranger
    > then Fiction. Try it. <g>]


    [ Will do. Took a minute for me to realize you weren't talking about
    Jarmusch's wonderful 1984 movie Stranger than Paradise. ]
     
    mbstevens, Mar 1, 2007
    #10
  11. Samuel van Laere

    Paul Guest

    "dorayme" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:...
    > In article <45e56746$0$7739$>,
    > "Paul" <> wrote:
    > >> I have compressed thumbnails images using ACDSee. It' s easy and very
    > >> fast.

    >> Paul (from Italy)

    >
    > The thumbnail sizes are fine here for your purposes. But there is
    > trouble with your design.


    Oh yes, I have seen. Thank you to let me note it.
    The fact is that it only happens with low resolution screens 800x600, and
    that type of visitors to my website are only about 7% of total.
    Anyway I will correct it.
    Luigi? No, I don't know any Luigi...., really.
    Paul
     
    Paul, Mar 1, 2007
    #11
  12. Paul wrote:
    > "dorayme" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    > news:...
    >> In article <45e56746$0$7739$>,
    >> "Paul" <> wrote:
    >>>> I have compressed thumbnails images using ACDSee. It' s easy and very
    >>>> fast.
    >>> Paul (from Italy)

    >> The thumbnail sizes are fine here for your purposes. But there is
    >> trouble with your design.

    >
    > Oh yes, I have seen. Thank you to let me note it.
    > The fact is that it only happens with low resolution screens 800x600, and
    > that type of visitors to my website are only about 7% of total.


    For many 800x600 is not low resolution but *their* resolution. Secondly
    how are you getting this statistic 7%? Are you basing it on screen
    resolution or browser windows size? You are making a fundamental error
    that folks always have their browser window maximize!

    > Anyway I will correct it.
    > Luigi? No, I don't know any Luigi...., really.


    We all want to forget Luigi, really.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 1, 2007
    #12
  13. Samuel van Laere

    Paul Guest

    "Jonathan N. Little" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:c7986$45e6e6ce$40cba7be$...
    > Paul wrote:
    >> "dorayme" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    >> news:...

    >
    > For many 800x600 is not low resolution but *their* resolution. Secondly
    > how are you getting this statistic 7%? Are you basing it on screen
    > resolution or browser windows size? You are making a fundamental error
    > that folks always have their browser window maximize!


    Well, I have seen it on my visitor counters:
    it is this:
    Screen Resolutions Unique Visitors

    1280x1024 642 47.45%
    1024x768 499 36.88%
    800x600 95 7.02%
    1152x864 41 3.03%
    Other 34 2.51%
    1400x1050 18 1.33%
    1440x900 12 0.89%
    1680x1050 6 0.44%
    1600x1200 4 0.30%
    1920x1200 1 0.07%
    640x480 1 0.07%

    >> Luigi? No, I don't know any Luigi...., really.

    >
    > We all want to forget Luigi, really.


    Surely I have lost something funny (??) with him...
    Paul
     
    Paul, Mar 1, 2007
    #13
  14. On Mar 1, 10:08 am, "Paul" <> wrote:
    > Screen Resolutions Unique Visitors
    > 1280x1024 642 47.45%
    > 1024x768 499 36.88%
    > 800x600 95 7.02%
    > 1152x864 41 3.03%
    > Other 34 2.51%
    > 1400x1050 18 1.33%
    > 1440x900 12 0.89%
    > 1680x1050 6 0.44%
    > 1600x1200 4 0.30%
    > 1920x1200 1 0.07%
    > 640x480 1 0.07%


    Pretty much meaningless information. How big is their browser window?
     
    Travis Newbury, Mar 1, 2007
    #14
  15. Samuel van Laere

    Paul Guest

    "Travis Newbury" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:...
    > On Mar 1, 10:08 am, "Paul" <> wrote:
    >> Screen Resolutions Unique Visitors
    >> 1280x1024 642 47.45%
    >> 1024x768 499 36.88%
    >> 800x600 95 7.02%
    >> 1152x864 41 3.03%
    >> Other 34 2.51%
    >> 1400x1050 18 1.33%
    >> 1440x900 12 0.89%
    >> 1680x1050 6 0.44%
    >> 1600x1200 4 0.30%
    >> 1920x1200 1 0.07%
    >> 640x480 1 0.07%

    >
    > Pretty much meaningless information. How big is their browser window?


    I am sorry, I don't know. Among stats I have, there isn't that information.
    I only can read stats about operative systems, java and screen colors.
    This isn't enough, isn't it?
    I am using http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=cakengli
    Paul
     
    Paul, Mar 1, 2007
    #15
  16. Paul wrote:
    > "Travis Newbury" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    > news:...
    >> On Mar 1, 10:08 am, "Paul" <> wrote:
    >>> Screen Resolutions Unique Visitors
    >>> 1280x1024 642 47.45%
    >>> 1024x768 499 36.88%
    >>> 800x600 95 7.02%
    >>> 1152x864 41 3.03%
    >>> Other 34 2.51%
    >>> 1400x1050 18 1.33%
    >>> 1440x900 12 0.89%
    >>> 1680x1050 6 0.44%
    >>> 1600x1200 4 0.30%
    >>> 1920x1200 1 0.07%
    >>> 640x480 1 0.07%

    >> Pretty much meaningless information. How big is their browser window?

    >
    > I am sorry, I don't know. Among stats I have, there isn't that information.
    > I only can read stats about operative systems, java and screen colors.
    > This isn't enough, isn't it?
    > I am using http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=cakengli


    That was *my point* in previous reply:

    http://message-id.net/%3Cc7986$45e6e6ce$40cba7be$%3E
    Message-ID.net : c7986$45e6e6ce$40cba7be$

    You will get that my screen size is 1280 x 1024 but that is *not* the
    size of my browser window! That is where your error lies. That is also
    why many here will advise that you should stop designing for any single
    "page" size. The Web is *not* paper.


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 1, 2007
    #16
  17. Samuel van Laere

    dorayme Guest

    In article <45e6a2a5$0$20806$>,
    "Paul" <> wrote:

    > "dorayme" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    > news:...
    > > In article <45e56746$0$7739$>,
    > > "Paul" <> wrote:
    > > >> I have compressed thumbnails images using ACDSee. It' s easy and very
    > > >> fast.
    > >> Paul (from Italy)

    > >
    > > The thumbnail sizes are fine here for your purposes. But there is
    > > trouble with your design.

    >
    > Oh yes, I have seen. Thank you to let me note it.
    > The fact is that it only happens with low resolution screens 800x600,
    > and
    > that type of visitors to my website are only about 7% of total.
    > Anyway I will correct it.


    I have a 20" 1600 * 1200 (as well as other connected screens.
    making a virtual desktop of much more) And yet still it is
    sometimes convenient to reduce browser size to 800 across or
    thereabouts. My point? Does this sort of thing get covered by the
    7% you mention?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 1, 2007
    #17
  18. Samuel van Laere

    dorayme Guest

    In article <c7986$45e6e6ce$40cba7be$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > We all want to forget Luigi, really.


    Only because he tended to bring out the worst in us. We loved him
    dearly really...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 1, 2007
    #18
  19. Samuel van Laere

    dorayme Guest

    In article <45e6ec5a$0$20811$>,
    "Paul" <> wrote:

    > "Jonathan N. Little" <> ha scritto nel messaggio
    > news:c7986$45e6e6ce$40cba7be$...


    > > We all want to forget Luigi, really.

    >
    > Surely I have lost something funny (??) with him...
    > Paul


    No, he is there etched in the archives forever...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 1, 2007
    #19
    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. Charles A. Lackman

    Thumbnail View

    Charles A. Lackman, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    434
    Charles A. Lackman
    Apr 1, 2004
  2. Arjen
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    324
    Arjen
    Aug 20, 2003
  3. David Lozzi
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    517
    john smith
    Feb 1, 2006
  4. Stuart Miller

    thumbnail and full size images

    Stuart Miller, Sep 20, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    613
    Andy Mabbett
    Oct 16, 2006
  5. Jason Cavett

    Preferred Size, Minimum Size, Size

    Jason Cavett, May 23, 2008, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    12,733
    Michael Jung
    May 25, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page