![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
|
I still don't get why this concept is 'fatally flawed'. The only reason I can see why images this large are a problem is because of the download time, but even for the extra-large version I'm working with at the moment, the download takes about 20-30 secs on a broadband connection, which is acceptable to me. I accept that on a modem, this image would be too slow, but then for that, I'm planning to give people a choice of using lower resolution images. E.g. 100 pixels high gives an 11K file, which would be fine on a 56K modem (about 3-4 seconds download) 170 pixels high gives a 31K file, which would still be OK over a modem. 400 pixels high at 50% quality gives a 182K file, which would be fine over broadband. |
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
Crossposted and follow up set to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets I didn't think that the image size would come down enough, but having tried it is indeed acceptable. I don't have an understanding of the clip property, nor of javascript, but afaics the issue you referred to doesn't relate to either. Using a reduced test case, setting overflow to hidden seems to resolve your problem: http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartanicus/panorama.htm I had to use an extra div due to browser bugs, the above demo seems to work in the big three (IE, Opera and Gecko based browsers). |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |