images/image size

[silentjohn]

less than 800 pixels?

[m1thr0s]

yes silentjohn...thanks for asking. It is posted someplace but even I can't seem to find it right now:

470 pixels is about as wide as an image can be before it begins reeking havok with templates. length is less of an issue than width.

actually...I take that back: that's only with conventional templates. We are using wide text boxes compared to most. I think we can go about 800px but not much more...

m1thr0s

[m1thr0s]

Pics that get much wider than this start pushing against the template walls which throws the pages out of whack. While it's more of a courtesy than an absolute necessity, it amounts to such a nuisance that we have to make it a rule...

http://abrahadabra.com/images/800x400px.jpg

So the 400px is just an arbitrary length. The issue is width. Ultimately the rule of thumb is that people should be able to scroll down the entire page without having to zig-zag back and forth between posts...:eek:

m1thr0s

[Ðanisty]

On the off-chance that someone is using 800x600 resolution, we might want to go slightly smaller than that. An 800px wide image will still bust out of the tables in an 800x600 resolution monitor.

However, I'd also like to suggest that anyone using 800x600 switch their resolution to at least 1024x768 if possible.

[m1thr0s]

I think the usual standard in web design is no wider than 720px isn't it Danisty? That way you are only leaving out whatever poor viewers are still somehow struggling along at 480 x 640...

Most computer screens today can handle 1024 x 728 resolutions...

m1thr0s

[Ðanisty]

I think the usual standard in web design is no wider than 720px isn't it Danisty? That way you are only leaving out whatever poor viewers are still somehow struggling along at 480 x 640...That would normally accomodate an 800s600 monitor (taking into account the scrollbar on the side), but you have to take into account that the tables are something like 90% the width of the screen. It's just a suggestion though. I would understand if you didn't want to require images to be any smaller than that.

Most computer screens today can handle 1024 x 728 resolutions...Very true. The problem is that some people have the capability of using 1024x768 but don't use it because it's not the default setting on their computer. They simply never changed it. I recommend that anyone using less than 800x600 change it because not many sites are designed for that resolution anymore. In fact, I'm not even using 1024x768...I'm using 1280x1024.

[m1thr0s]

well I am willing to go with 800px MAX so long as we aren't getting complaints I think...

I'd feel a little safer at 700-720px just because I know people very rarely WILL complain...

I hate it when people suffer in silence...what the hell good does that do for anybody?

m1thr0s

[silentjohn]

http://www.resize2mail.com/

[m1thr0s]

yep...I think we can go the upper end (540 x 720) with no real difficulty...

m1thr0s