Daniel Mayer wrote:
On Wednesday 24 July 2002 05:56 pm, Karen wrote:
I don't even try to get the text to wrap because I think the page often looks neater if it doesn't wrap when you're putting a fairly large pic in. I standardise my image size to about 300 or 400 pixels across because again I think it looks neater if all the images match up in a row.
In the case of images that size I would simply center them inline to the text so they look nice in browsers that are 1000+ pixels wide. Having images that wide though should be reserved for special cases -- like in the [[Yosemite Valley]] article for example. If the image is just of somebodies portrait or of an organism, then please downsize the image to between 150-250 pixels and then wrap the text around it (perhaps placing the larger version on the thumb's image page). This is pretty standard practice on other webpages and has analogues in the print media (If you need quick access to a very simple, right or left aligned table, just place one on your user page).
Anything wider than 250 pixels begins to crowd-out wrapped text for people with screen resolutions of 800 by 600 pixels -- which is the largest single group of web-surfers BTW (MS Windows default).
150 pixels is FAR too small for any details to be visible. If you're going to do that then you've got to do the 'two image' thing and put a larger version on the image description page. Once upon a time I would have said that 100 pixels was ample but most people are using large screen monitors and working on at least 1000 pixels across the screen. Sure, if you're going to wrap, then you want it small but I think it looks better NOT wrapped, with a caption underneath the pic.
Inserting tables for a single image is unecessarily complicating the page layout and coding on the edit screen. When I look at an edit screen with a complicated table in it I'm afraid to touch it for fear of messing up the entire page. HTML is not everybody's friend.