Image not resized to browser window

[mbstevens]

Any other "modern doctypes" you want me to demonstrate?

OK! That's good enough for me.

 

[dorayme]

dorayme might welll frame your posting and hang it on his wall.

I dunno Patrick... do I seem so desperate?

 

[patrick j]

I dunno Patrick... do I seem so desperate?

No, I don't think so at all.

I do think being described as "golden" is particularly flattering.

 

[dorayme]

No, I don't think so at all.

I do think being described as "golden" is particularly flattering.

yes, ok... I give in, I am printing and dusting off a frame
already...

 

[Dan]

ALSO, the images will appear full-screen (IE maximized) for
whatever display resolution they have.

Why are you assuming that your viewers will be using IE instead of a
decent browser like Mozilla?

 

[patrick j]

yes, ok... I give in, I am printing and dusting off a frame
already...

You can't use a silver frame. There is no greater clash than silver and
gold.

 

[Don]

Why are you assuming that your viewers will be using IE instead of a
decent browser like Mozilla?

I didn't; I tested in both (or actually Netscape 7).

 

[Don]

If it will never appear on the net, letting
the browser resize is not quite so bad, but I
still would not do it unless you are also
sure that everyone you distribute the CDs to
also have a browser that resizes images in a
way that looks good and that maintains the
aspect ratio.


I would make a set of images reduced to the
same width and have a printing link to the
full sized image. Your pages will fail
validation without a width and height set.


Not unless they allow their browser windows
to be maximized. Are you playing around with
jscript to maximize their windows without
their permission? That would be a bad idea.
They might have different ideas about how
large their browser windows should be.
Better to make reduced images that are small
enough to display in even a reasonably small
browser window.

I am not maximizing it for them, I just meant that they can make it as
large as they want, and they'll be getting as much resolution as they
wish (& can handle).

 

[Don]

Another drawback, if you put up big photos then you disadvantage
people who either have very small screens, low bandwidth or who
are happy to see them a reasonable small size. It works like
this: you can put up a massive pic and it will resize by the
browser either with the style I gave you or in other ways (there
are situations when you can base the width and height on ems
according to the px proportions of the native size) not to badly
if it is viewed with less pixels than native. But the big file
still has to be downloaded to the punters machine, the poor
fellow on dialup or small screen is getting more than he wants
for hs purpose.

Agreed, but as I said, this is on a CD. I did make a version for the
web but for that I downsized to 1024X768.

 

[dorayme]

Agreed, but as I said, this is on a CD. I did make a version for the
web but for that I downsized to 1024X768.

I have forgotten all details of the thread but many people cannot
spare 1024 x 768 and so this sounds too big to me.

I still think this last bit of advice is worth noting. (In fact,
when I re-read it, a little tear came into my eye at its succinct
beauty and sense)