Michael Daly wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
It looked good at that size. :)
On your monitor maybe. Unfortunately, basing sizes on absolute pixel
counts makes no sense in todays computer world. When (almost) everyone
used 640x480 monitors, fixed sizes were more reasonable. However, with
everything from low-res large screens to very-high-res small screens or
high-res big to low-res small, fixed image sizes suck.
Since the rest of the computer's UI is based on fixed pixel sizes too,
I'm afraid you're pretty much stuck. ;)
HTML/CSS pixels are actually not strictly related to device pixels --
rather they have a defined relation to CSS inches. The device pixels
will depend on the browser's zoom setting, whether your system has been
configured for super-high-resolution display, whether you're on screen
or printing, etc.
"Pixels" on the web refer to a size range which is _roughly_ similar on
most displays, and very large screens will usually be showing multiple
windows which are closer to the size of smaller screens. Trying to make
your images different sizes makes no sense at all in these cases and
would actually be hugely counterproductive.
I find that a single parameter (e.g. width) works
reasonably for most
images regardless of orientation (landscape, portrait). Only those with
extreme aspect ratios are problematic.
This is not my experience; simply flipping between portrait and
landscape of a typical photo will change your final size by a hugely
visible margin, and anything slightly more extreme such as a
human-shaped cutout or a panoramic view or widescreen screenshot becomes
completely inappropriate to work with.
-- brion