web page, i did resize the images

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 1280x1024,
but somebody has said that resolution is
not important but the amount of pixels only

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

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 1280x1024,
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

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 1280x1024,
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 @1280x1024 that's how many pixels can be displayed. if your resolution is set to 800x600 that's how many can be displayed. it's that simple. ex: if you post an image that is 1280x1024 and view it on a monitor that's set to 800x600 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 1280x1024. the last estimate i saw discussed was more like 800x600 screen resolution. so if you don't want your image to fill the screen of most users you should keep them smaller than 800x600. 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 @1280x1024 that's how many pixels can be displayed. if your resolution is set to 800x600 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 800x600. Suppose a Web page has a picture that is 1024x768. 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 800x600. Suppose a Web page has a picture that is 1024x768. 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