style and simple is best - image width & height...

I saw that NY Times uses to create thumbnails from cropping images. But sometimes they say very little of the whole image.

I think that it is best to specify a standard (html: width and height) square (130 x 130) with the real image to be seen after clicking on it.

A square might not represent the real image well but at small proportions, one wouldn't be able to recognize well the difference and you gain some client speed at preloading the real image.

Comment on style and simple is best - image width & height...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: style and simple is best - image width & height... by Reverend Phil (Pilgrim) on Jun 30, 2003 at 13:23 UTC
I'm no hard-core web developer, but I do recall readingsomewhere that using the width/height properties varies in results on different browsers. Some might squeeze the image differently than others. If this is an intranet site that will have homogenous users (everyone on IE:5 or something), it's no biggie then. But if it's open to the world, I would suggest going the Image::* routes mentioned above, as it will ensure a consistent face for all your users.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: style and simple is best - image width & height...
by Reverend Phil (Pilgrim) on Jun 30, 2003 at 13:23 UTC

I'm no hard-core web developer, but I do recall readingsomewhere that using the width/height properties varies in results on different browsers. Some might squeeze the image differently than others. If this is an intranet site that will have homogenous users (everyone on IE:5 or something), it's no biggie then. But if it's open to the world, I would suggest going the Image::* routes mentioned above, as it will ensure a consistent face for all your users.

[reply]