Gerard.Meijssen wrote:
*I was referring to a post where server side
compression was advocated
based on the line/screen quality of the client side. This would happen
when the details of the screen are requested. The argument was that a 5
Mb picture is too big over dial up. Consequently the current practice of
compress once and save would not apply.
Well, this is the thing -- the server can't know anything about the
client side, including the screen size. Any guess would be no better
than a guess. This is why I suggested to let the server send the entire
big image and let the client do the scaling, but at the same time, I
agree with others that server-side scaling would increase accessibility
for users of slow connections.
Maybe it would make sense to just limit the images on description pages
to a width of 800px and a height of 600px. An image of that size is no
bigger than 200 KB, usually less than 100 KB. However, of course the
problem with this is that users of a screen resolution of 800x600 or
lower would have to scroll around to see it.
Another thing that I don't like about this is that it means you have to
click twice and produce two requests to the server in order to get the
full-size image.
Timwi