Web Builder Zone - Comments for "Resizeable Images (without losing quality!)"

Casey, how would you suggest

davidwalsh — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:33:13 -0500

Casey, how would you suggest handling images on a site where accessibility is a major issue?

David Walsh
Web Developer & Zone Leader
http://davidwalsh.name/

There are some things that

chriscoyier — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:38:47 -0500

There are some things that will be sacrificed here.

Yes, the page will be "bloated", in that the images will be larger sized than they need to be for the default size.

Yes, there is a chance at some sizes that the web browser doesn't do a very good job at resizing and it looks slightly off.

Yes, several very modern browsers do this automatically so it's already sort of out-dated.

It's just a technique. It's good to know. It's interesting. It could be potentially good for use in ultra-accessible sites.

Keep an open mind, Rip. I

davidwalsh — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:37:47 -0500

Keep an open mind, Rip. I work with a visually-impaired person who this would help out tremendously. He resizes the page to x-hundred percent but can't view the pictures at a decent quality.

This method most definitely has its place.

David Walsh
Web Developer & Zone Leader
http://davidwalsh.name/

this is by far the most

rip747 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:23:28 -0500

this is by far the most retarded thing I've ever read.

so what your saying, with your example, is that it's perfectly fine to send a 1200x18000 ~150K picture over the wire and displaying it at 200x300, instead of using photoshop to resize it to 200x300 in the first place thus reducing the file size to about ~20K and saving yourself from transferring ~130K; in conclusion making the page load faster.

Did I get that right?

The problem with this

rocky1138 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:22:34 -0500

The problem with this method is that, like others have pointed out, the image must be quite large for this effect to work. Take your example for example, the original source image is only maybe 80x80 in size but it's 150k because it's a scaled down large image. This method would work, but maybe only for a few of the text sizes. After all, it's probably not important to be able to scale up to size 72 font if you get my drift.

Awesome post Chris! The

davidwalsh — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:39:05 -0500

Awesome post Chris! The only thing I'd add is that people should try to keep the large image within reasonable size. You never cease to impress!

David Walsh
Web Developer & Zone Leader
http://davidwalsh.name/