vriad_lee: (Default)
[personal profile] vriad_lee
it's ridiculous how most communities make you resize your photos to 600xsomething. i mean, 600xsomething, what is THAT, a fat thumbnail? people on dialup like myself don't look at other people's photos anyway, at least not through photo communities. we have no choice but to post our own stuff, to compensate for the frustration. ok, i just missed my bus

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-16 07:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dikayasobaka.livejournal.com
Meeeooowwww!!!!

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-16 09:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcfnord.livejournal.com
You will have fewer readers above 600px

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-19 01:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
WHY? you mean so many people are still on dialup, and watching photos in photocommunities?

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-19 05:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcfnord.livejournal.com
It has nothing to do with dialup. It has to do with screen resolution widths. Some people have worse resolution. Something above 500px hurts the friends page of people on 800x600 computers. You might not care about people with these old computers, but if you hurt their friends page view in their browser too much, then they will drop you. I had to figure this out when I made a graphic meme that gets viewed in friends pages.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-19 05:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
800x600 is a very strange choice if you want to look at pictures

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-19 06:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcfnord.livejournal.com
you can make your pictures as wide as you wish. i just wanted you to understand how it impacts a small group of users.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-19 06:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
that's a question of how small it is. because if i try considering every small group, i might end making cellphone-compatible posts.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-19 09:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcfnord.livejournal.com
It would be useful to know what % of people use 800x600. I stopped using it about a year ago. you might prefer to figure out the maximum width for the next-highest common resolution.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-19 09:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcfnord.livejournal.com
You may already know: you can force a width in the image tag like this:

<img width='500'...

best of luck

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-19 10:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
ok, thanks

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-16 12:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] magnetic99.livejournal.com
i totally agree with you. but you can use the 600 px version before the cut and put the big one after. one idea ......

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-16 04:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] welfy.livejournal.com
Is that a housecat? It seems more wild.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-19 02:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
i don't know, i met him in the street

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-16 04:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zzzing.livejournal.com
that cat is ugly

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-19 06:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
c'mon it's beautiful. say awwwww!

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-16 11:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] poemtree.livejournal.com
does this cat have an underbite?!

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-19 02:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
i had another photo of him, with his mouth open, but i can't find it now. i think some of his lower teeth were missing

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-17 12:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] abele.livejournal.com
love the cat

(no subject)

Date: 2005-10-17 10:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stillcarl.livejournal.com
Cool cat. I posted a cat pic today too - yah for cats! Your cat's more expressive though...

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags