[Wikipedia-l] Re: Image width

[Daniel Mayer]

On Thursday 25 July 2002 02:13 am, Karen wrote:
> 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.

Where did you read that "most people are using large screen monitors and 
working on at least 1000 pixels across the screen"? My experience is that the 
vast majority of desktop users, even those with 21 inch monitors go with 
Windows defaults. Maybe XP detects this now and gives a larger default based 
on screen size, but previous versions of Windows use 800 by 600 pixels by 
default. 

I haven't seen the research myself, but the IT department where I work always 
state that market research indicates that by far the largest single group of 
websurfers use Windows default resolutions. My coworkers and I are therefore 
constrained by lowest common denominator of 800 by 600 pixels and have to 
size everything appropriately -- which is annoying since my 21 inch monitor 
at work is at 1600 by 1200. 

The 150 figure was a bare minimum figure and not really meant to be 
equivalent to the upper bound of 250 (which can be stretched to 300 in most 
cases without too much text squishing at lower res). 

Just something for you to consider, I'm not proposing we make this policy or 
anything.  

--mav