viewing pics

Sat, 25 Feb 95 00:37:04 -0500

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're doing, at least not
from your description. 1024x768 is bigger than 800x600. It sounds
like you're saying that somehow making it bigger is making it smaller.

Generally, you're limited by the resolution of the screen. As a pixel
pusher, I know that at some point, I can no longer draw certain
letters because the pixels just won't allow it --- I've hit the
resolution limit (the event horizon? nahhh). I haven't seen your
work, so I don't know if this applies or not. But if it does, there
isn't much you can do.

A standard thing to do in the world of WWW photos and art is to
provide either a tiny version or a cropped version (or a combo) of the
main picture, and then, when the person clicks on the picture, you
have their browser pop up an external viewer so the person can see
your art in all its glory (or, you can go to a larger inlined image in
which the person can scroll around). Even if some of your letters
aren't legible, the overall view should be enough to convey the
general idea (or you can put in some text explaining what people
will see if they look at the normal-size version).

This serves the dual purpose of not forcing the person to load a
humungous full-color, time-consuming picture unless s/he has been
intrigued enough by the miniature version to do so. I find it
annoying to have to look at humungous, slow-loading pictures unless
I specifically asked for it (but smaller pix are OK).

In case you didn't know, the standard way to cause a browser to start up
an external graphic viewer is to set the URL to the image itself:

<img src="http://whatever-the-server-is/whatever/image.GIF">

Finally, as a warning, many people's browsers have a default limit of
50 colors. Putting too many colors on one page may well cause really
strange effects for some viewers.


-- "Extend Ki" (a.k.a. "Use the Force")

MIT '92 webmaster & unpublished writer, computer artist, Perl serf, etc.