Noob AJAX question -

We'll have to agree to disagree that it's too soon to consider 1600.

Are you talking web-wide? If so, it's too soon. If you are talking about
your specific demographic, then it may be past time to do that.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================


"Mike" <mike (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote

"Michael Fesser" <netizen (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote in message
news:kahns4teeo366qlha339k6umrknnljis1m (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

Yep (I do the same fade-out on my sites), I just consider 1600px too
wide already. Almost nobody will see the images in full size, so it's
just a waste.

Not in my field of work. We're most of us already at 1920. The switch to
widescreen also makes 1024 practically obsolete already. Most widescreen
modes default at 1280 don't they? 1600 seems a reasonable "max width" to
me, especially when you consider how fast technology becomes obsolete.

We'll have to agree to disagree that it's too soon to consider 1600.

bg05.jpg is the original directly taken from your site, the others use
varying compression levels: 10 almost leads to the same file size as
your original, 25 is my default for almost all web images, in some cases
(depends on the image) I even go up to 30. In this case 30 leads to some
little artefacts in the sky part of the image, but 25 would still be
acceptable to me.

Yes, well.. you conveniently picked the image with the least information
in it. I could get that one under 200k too. But what about bg03 for
instance?

..oO(Mike)

"Michael Fesser" <netizen (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote in message
news:kahns4teeo366qlha339k6umrknnljis1m (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

Yep (I do the same fade-out on my sites), I just consider 1600px too
wide already. Almost nobody will see the images in full size, so it's
just a waste.

Not in my field of work. We're most of us already at 1920.

Pfff ... I'm on 2.752 here ... dual-screen. And I'm even thinking about
adding a third screen, because when working in Eclipse or PSP I really
need a lot of space for toolbars/palettes and other helper apps.

But we're talking about websites here, not about working environments.
Don't tell me you're surfing the Web with a browser maxed to 1920px. OK,
on your site it would be a good neck training, because you would always
have to turn your head by 90° in order to move the view from the menubar
on the left to the text box on the top right and back. ;-)

The switch to
widescreen also makes 1024 practically obsolete already.

I don't think so. And what does widescreen have to do with it? My main
screen is on 1600px - 4:3.

Most widescreen
modes default at 1280 don't they? 1600 seems a reasonable "max width" to me,
especially when you consider how fast technology becomes obsolete.

Don't make the mistake of assuming screen size = viewport size. This
_always_ leads to confusion and usability problems. A bigger screen
doesn't automatically mean bigger browser windows. And even if you
maximize the browser to 1920 - how will most websites look then? You'll
end up with a mostly empty screen and the website itself being just a
small decorative side or center bar. The other extreme would be a 100%
flexible and totally unrestricted layout with text lines half a meter
long. Not good either.

You have to think about _reasonable_ viewport sizes and should not go
into the extreme just because it might be possible.

We'll have to agree to disagree that it's too soon to consider 1600.

The size range that I consider reasonable in the Web is from 800 to
1200px. Maybe even a bit less for netbooks, but hardly more. It simply
doesn't make much sense for various reasons. Printed papers could also
be sold in a 2x2m size, but then you would get real problems holding and
reading them. Somewhere you have to draw the line to keep things usable
and manageable.

bg05.jpg is the original directly taken from your site, the others use
varying compression levels: 10 almost leads to the same file size as
your original, 25 is my default for almost all web images, in some cases
(depends on the image) I even go up to 30. In this case 30 leads to some
little artefacts in the sky part of the image, but 25 would still be
acceptable to me.

Yes, well.. you conveniently picked the image with the least information in
it.

It was a purely random choice.

I could get that one under 200k too. But what about bg03 for
instance?

Sure, will do in a minute.

Micha

..oO(Mike)

Yes, well.. you conveniently picked the image with the least information in
it. I could get that one under 200k too. But what about bg03 for
instance?

Done: http://temp.mfesser.de/vilverset/

In this case the compression was quite good already. But IMHO you could
go even higher a bit, because in such an image you can hardly notice any
artefacts. Level 30 is comparable to your version. On level 40 I get
some more blurring, which is noticeable if you directly compare it to
the original.

Micha