--- Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
I'm not sure that thumbnails are the ideal answer,
though, because
they're very annoying for those who _do_ have
high-speed connections.
I wonder whether it would be unreasonable to
request that Wikipedia
support two (or three?) flavors of delivery,
chosen in
Preferences--high graphics, thumbnail graphics,
and perhaps no graphics?
Perhaps an additional possibility would be to have things be more relative. Right now there is a default size, but it's not usually used, because it seems to be smaller than what most people are using. But hard-coding pixel values is a bad idea, because peoples' monitors and preferred reading sizes and so on vary, so they really should be relative somehow. And once we have a relative coding scheme, it's easy to add an option that says "show me all images 50% smaller".
The main problem I see with making thumbnails smaller all around is that really small thumbnails are often pretty useless, often not any better than simply a text link to the full-sized picture, because you can't see anything on the tiny thumbnail.
-Mark
Well users can always disable photographs in their browser settings. I think it would be hard to administer a system with different size images for different people. (another thing is that people on dialup would try to format the article to look good on their version with the small image, and people on broadband would revert, and many edit wars might result)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html