Timwi (timwi@gmx.net) [050524 05:06]:
David Gerard wrote:
Timwi (timwi@gmx.net) [050523 11:37]:
Not because I have a slow connection (which I do, but I don't mind), but rather because I'm getting annoyed when people make images so huge because they have a 1280x1024 resolution and they think everyone else must have that too. (I even had one replying back to me saying "Not everyone has a resolution as low as yours, so please leave the image this big!")
We have thumbnailing code, so it does make some sense to have images be huge on the page and reduced as needed.
I *am* talking about thumbnails. The person I was referring to made the thumbnail so big that it was more than 70% the width of the article text area on my screen.
Isn't there something in the style guide which strongly suggests 250px as a good image width? Mention it on talk - the other editor is simply incorrect, precisely for people with old machines.
I have occasionally used pictures going across the width of the article, but I've then laid it out centred without text wrapping around it - e.g. [[Telstra Dome]] (although I see the current version has the text wrapping around the rather wide image).
In any case, if you write a pref for max thumbnail size and Brion likes the idea I expect it'll go in :-)
- d.