Brion Vibber wrote:
It looked good at that size. :)
On your monitor maybe. Unfortunately, basing sizes on absolute pixel
counts makes no sense in todays computer world. When (almost) everyone
used 640x480 monitors, fixed sizes were more reasonable. However, with
everything from low-res large screens to very-high-res small screens or
high-res big to low-res small, fixed image sizes suck.
If a single number was to be used, scaling it to the width as a
percentage might be better. However, when I put any images into a wiki
page, I make sure it uses the user default - set in preferences. It
still forces a fixed width, but at least a fixed width that the user can
choose to match their screen size (within limits - perhaps instead of
allowing the user to select from a small set of fixed values, an input
field could be provided so they could choose any value).
I find that a single parameter (e.g. width) works reasonably for most
images regardless of orientation (landscape, portrait). Only those with
extreme aspect ratios are problematic.
I like the idea of having images characterized on upload and then have
parameters attached that could map to CSS as HWL has suggested. But not
if the resulting CSS uses a fixed pixel size. If the CSS is modified on
the fly to include the user's chosen size that would be better.
Mike