Re: [OT] ideal file size of a jpeg or gif image

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"James Brook" <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
3A07D0F2.AB563051@ozemail.com.au">news:3A07D0F2.AB563051@ozemail.com.au...
> Dave Proctor wrote:
> >
> > And it was only the whinging in here that made you do that. If not for
the
> > whinging, you would not have done so, you would have stuck to your guns.
> >
>
> Although I wouldn't have done it so fast, I have been thinking about
> doing something like this for a while, but I haven't really got around
> to it. I was just suggested that the user could modify their desktop
> resolution if they wanted to see an entire photo that was bigger than
> their browser allowed. This modification of the resolution doesn't apply
> to my site alone. There are quite a few other images out there that
> don't display fully at 800x600. I think my solution is a fair compromise
> as it allows people like you to see the image fully and it also means
> that people who want high quality are also happy.

And I think you are wrong. If it is purely an image, it should display
*fully* in the normal screen size, i.e. 800x600 (although taking a bit off
for browser borders, etc). Choosing to display it higher shows a degree of
arrogance, IMNSHO.

Dave