web page, i did resize the images

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:50:43 +0100, "RBB" wrote (with possible editing):

hello
i did resize the images at my web page,
i hope they can be seen enterely even with
window numbers.
thanks for checkout and let me know.

my monitor resolution in 1280×1024,
but somebody has said that resolution is
not important but the amount of pixels only

FWLIW, I’d spread the gallery out over several pages. The page is too large (in my opinion) and loads too slowly. I would also make the opening page smaller. Since there is nothing in the margins, scroll bars serve little purpose. You can set your background to black and use a smaller size.

—

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:50:43 +0100, "RBB" wrote:

hello
i did resize the images at my web page,
i hope they can be seen enterely even with
window numbers.
thanks for checkout and let me know.

my monitor resolution in 1280×1024,
but somebody has said that resolution is
not important but the amount of pixels only

—
http://www.telefonica.net/web2/burch

Not by me however I would look towards an html or web publishing ng for an answer

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:50:43 +0100, "RBB" wrote:

You might experiment with some of PS Templates. or, Make your own template. A question, is this a hobby site, or a commerce site ?
If hobby, looks fine as is.
If commerce, I would refine the navigation by providing navigation on EVERY page.

Someone mentioned size and loading. Both good points. though 800×600 is probably a long lost memory by now, you would want to design for 56k [size of page] and average screen resolutions. Not everyone is using DSL for any number of reasons. I saw one ad the other day ‘Only $230.00 for the next 6 months’. Huh ? Yeah right.. Then what $500.00 for the next 6 ?

I haven’t used 800×600 since I had a C= 64. So I’d guess a web page larger than 800×600 would be the target size.

Maybe categorizing the photos into people, birds, wildlife, plants etc.. The thumbs could be a bit larger and still get the message across. I use a constant of 139×139 for thumbs myself.

size=56k meaning keep the pages small enough that it doesn’t take more than 6 seconds to load a page. People start debating hanging around at the 3 second mark.

And unless you’re selling the actual photos from the web site, there’s no reason to have any image larger than the largest screen can handle 1280×1024 is huge. And you can keep the speed of loading down by compressing the images to a max of 70%. And in most all cases this will provide enough definition to know what the original looks like.
Why post a 1 meg file if you can say the same in 60k or less ?

This also goes for the HTML page itself. Scroll bars are a fine idea, but if you aren’t careful they’re a prime problem for increasing page weight. If you need to scroll more than a fraction on a page, you should probably consider condensing the pages text size,, amount of info provided, or can this page cover two or more pages better ?

Myself I hate it if a page creates a scroll bar, but in some cases you just can’t get around it.

hello
i did resize the images at my web page,
i hope they can be seen enterely even with
window numbers.
thanks for checkout and let me know.

my monitor resolution in 1280×1024,
but somebody has said that resolution is
not important but the amount of pixels only

—
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

"L. M. Rappaport" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:50:43 +0100, "RBB" wrote (with possible editing):

hello
i did resize the images at my web page,
i hope they can be seen enterely even with
window numbers.
thanks for checkout and let me know.

my monitor resolution in 1280×1024,
but somebody has said that resolution is
not important but the amount of pixels only

FWLIW, I’d spread the gallery out over several pages. The page is too large (in my opinion) and loads too slowly. I would also make the opening page smaller. Since there is nothing in the margins, scroll bars serve little purpose. You can set your background to black and use a smaller size.

Good suggestions but it all opens fast on my network.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:56:15 -0500, "Scruff" wrote:

Good suggestions but it all opens fast on my network.

It does not open from Internet but from your harddrive.
That is why it’s fast on your pc.

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:56:15 -0500, "Scruff" wrote:

Good suggestions but it all opens fast on my network.

It does not open from Internet but from your harddrive.
That is why it’s fast on your pc.

Dave

Fast is fast. Are you saying your computer is slow?

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:28:31 -0500, "Scruff" wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:56:15 -0500, "Scruff" wrote:

Good suggestions but it all opens fast on my network.

It does not open from Internet but from your harddrive.
That is why it’s fast on your pc.

Dave

Fast is fast. Are you saying your computer is slow?

do you know what you are talking about?
I simply said it is already on your history. so
it is loading from your cache files and not from inetrnet. This is why someone else will find it slower loading then you.

I have not been on your website, and only reply on your saying that it open fast on yòur system. Empty your history, and try it again. Are you new to computers?

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:28:31 -0500, "Scruff" wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:56:15 -0500, "Scruff" wrote:

Good suggestions but it all opens fast on my network.

It does not open from Internet but from your harddrive.
That is why it’s fast on your pc.

Dave

Fast is fast. Are you saying your computer is slow?

do you know what you are talking about?
I simply said it is already on your history. so
it is loading from your cache files and not from inetrnet. This is why someone else will find it slower loading then you.
I have not been on your website, and only reply on your saying that it open fast on y

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:04:14 -0500, "Scruff" wrote:

You’re talking to the wrong guy about whether I know what I’m talking about.

sorry Scruff, I see the original was from someone else.

Dave

In article ,
Husky wrote:

Someone mentioned size and loading. Both good points. though 800×600 is probably a long lost memory by now, you would want to design for 56k [size of page] and average screen resolutions.

Believe it or not, in this day and age, 800×600 is by far the most common screen resolution. Even the cheesy built-in motherboard graphics chips on low-end hardware these days supports more than 800×600, but most people simply don’t set their monitors to higher resolutions.

This matches my own personal experience–every time I walk into a clinet’s office, sure enough, I can bet that almost every PC will be set to 800×600–and it’s borne out by all the Web statistics I’ve seen as well.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

ZONED! wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:50:43 +0100, "RBB" wrote:

hello
i did resize the images at my web page,
i hope they can be seen enterely even with
window numbers.
thanks for checkout and let me know.

my monitor resolution in 1280×1024,
but somebody has said that resolution is
not important but the amount of pixels only

—
http://www.telefonica.net/web2/burch

Not by me however I would look towards an html or web publishing ng for an answer

you’re confusing yourself. think about it…if your monitor resolution is set @1280×1024 that’s how many pixels can be displayed. if your resolution is set to 800×600 that’s how many can be displayed. it’s that simple. ex: if you post an image that is 1280×1024 and view it on a monitor that’s set to 800×600 the image will be larger than the screen…you’ll have to scroll the screen to view the entire image or zoom out to less than 100%. your video card resizes pixels to achieve the resolution setting. i’m not a web page guru it seems logical that you consider the hardware settings of your viewing audience when determining image dimensions. most people don’t have large monitors that are set to 1280×1024. the last estimate i saw discussed was more like 800×600 screen resolution. so if you don’t want your image to fill the screen of most users you should keep them smaller than 800×600. and, obviously, you have to consider your total page content (i.e. text & images & logo, etc.) and you probably want to also consider loading time for you page. most people don’t have hi-speed internet connections. the larger the image the longer it will take the page to load. hope this helps.

"neon" wrote in message

you’re confusing yourself. think about it…if your monitor resolution is set @1280×1024 that’s how many pixels can be displayed. if your resolution is set to 800×600 that’s how many can be displayed. it’s that simple. […]

Web browsers don’t care what your monitor settings are.

In article
wrote:

Web browsers don’t care what your monitor settings are.

However, Web browsers can not display an image that is bigger than the monitor.

Think about this.

Suppose your screen is set to 800×600. Suppose a Web page has a picture that is 1024×768. It will not fit on the screen; you will have to scroll to the right and scroll down to see it all.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Tacit" wrote in message

In article
wrote:

Web browsers don’t care what your monitor settings are.

However, Web browsers can not display an image that is bigger than the monitor.

Of course not. And I see a lot of examples of just that problem.

"Tacit" posted:
"…
However, Web browsers can not display an image that is bigger than the monitor. …"

Not correct. Both Internet Explorer and Firefox have the capability to reduce the size of any graphic downloaded to ‘fit the screen’ … and IIRC …. both are shipped with the "factory default setting to do that turned *ON.*

"Tacit" wrote in message

In article
wrote:

Web browsers don’t care what your monitor settings are.

However, Web browsers can not display an image that is bigger than the monitor.

Think about this.

Suppose your screen is set to 800×600. Suppose a Web page has a picture that is 1024×768. It will not fit on the screen; you will have to scroll to the right and scroll down to see it all.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:15:12 GMT, "RSD99"
wrote:

"Tacit" posted:
"…
However, Web browsers can not display an image that is bigger than the monitor. …"

Not correct. Both Internet Explorer and Firefox have the capability to reduce the size of any graphic downloaded to ‘fit the screen’ … and IIRC … both are shipped with the "factory default setting to do that turned *ON.*

Yes. I turned it off in IE 😉 But I left it on when I changed to Firebird (which is now Firefox).

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Did Tacit really write:

Not correct. Both Internet Explorer and Firefox have the capability to reduce the size of any graphic downloaded to ‘fit the screen’ … and IIRC … both are shipped with the "factory default setting to do that turned *ON.*

I was thinking of type and everything else in a web page. We all know Explorer can shrink-to-fit (to suit whom, I don’t know), and there are plenty of other solutions to navigate masssive images through a web browser. One means to such an end is built into Photoshop (to return to On Topic stuff.)

In article <AeW2e.27253$>,
"RSD99" wrote:

Not correct. Both Internet Explorer and Firefox have the capability to reduce the size of any graphic downloaded to ‘fit the screen’ … and IIRC … both are shipped with the "factory default setting to do that turned *ON.*

For a URL that ends in a single image, yes. However, they will not do this for images referenced within an HTML file.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html