Gerard.Meijssen wrote:
*I was referring to a post where server side compression was advocated based on the line/screen quality of the client side. This would happen when the details of the screen are requested. The argument was that a 5 Mb picture is too big over dial up. Consequently the current practice of compress once and save would not apply.
Well, this is the thing -- the server can't know anything about the client side, including the screen size. Any guess would be no better than a guess. This is why I suggested to let the server send the entire big image and let the client do the scaling, but at the same time, I agree with others that server-side scaling would increase accessibility for users of slow connections.
Maybe it would make sense to just limit the images on description pages to a width of 800px and a height of 600px. An image of that size is no bigger than 200 KB, usually less than 100 KB. However, of course the problem with this is that users of a screen resolution of 800x600 or lower would have to scroll around to see it.
Another thing that I don't like about this is that it means you have to click twice and produce two requests to the server in order to get the full-size image.
Timwi