Absolute maximum width for web browsing?

[trishh]

Most sizing recommendations out there say that images intended for

web browsing be sized to not exceed browser widths so viewers don't

have to scroll. But what about for horizontal and vertical panoramas

that are inteneded to be scrolled with a wide field of view?

 

What is the absolute maximum width and height and is it browser or

platform dependent?

 

Can anyone tell me what these max widths or heights are? Are there

limits? Everything I've found so far assumes images must not be

scrolled.

[brian_kennedy]

Personally, I find it annoying to scroll images. I'm in the camp that thinks you should assume images *shouldn't* be scrolled.

 

However, maybe you could consider giving the viewer two choices - one for 800x600 screens, another for 1024x768 screens? Or one that doesn't require scrolling and another that does? As for absolute limits, I don't think, technically, there are any. But IMO you should strongly consider not requiring scrolling as a "default."

[ralph_barker]

There are several factors that come into play, Trish. Perhaps the two most important being the viewer's monitor resolution setting, and their individual working style with their browser of choice. So, while the ideal is to attempt to avoid forcing the viewer to scroll, there's no way to actually assure that.

 

You can, however, make certain assumptions based on the target audience for your images. "Image professionals" (photographers, graphic artists, art directors and such) tend to have larger monitors (19" monitors are common), and typically have them set at fairly high resolution - 1024x768 is pretty common. Consumers, in contrast, tend to have smaller screens (15" or 17"), and may have them set at 800x600. Browser working styles also differ, but it's usually a good idea to assume that they don't have the browser window maximized, but rather set to a typical page width - a little bit wider than the photo.net logo, for example.

 

Thus, for the viewer with a 1024x768 monitor setting, a "maximum" image width of about 600 pixels for landscape-mode images is usually a safe bet, although that size starts pushing comfortable file-size limits. A "maximum" height of around 550 pixels usually works, as well. Much larger than either, the risk of scrolling comes into play, and the image file sizes start to get too big for quick downloads. A file size of around 60K-70K is usually considered workable for "full-size" versions (contrasted to 10K-15K for thumbnails).

 

From a website design perspective, it's usually best to pick image sizes that work for your target audience, and stay consistent throughout the site. Another design option is to allow the user to pick their screen resolution, and then display sets of images tailored to that screen size - e.g. one set for the 1024x768 or higher folks, and a different set for 800x600 users.

[thirteenthumbs]

Appearantly there is no limit. Several government sites have images so large that when you try to open them you get a warning that it may crash your computer. The Hubble Space Telescope site is one that contains such.

[trishh]

I understand the differences in resolution and the interrelationships between resolution, dimensions and file size.

And I agree that in most cases, images shouldn't be scrolled.

 

But for panoramas with aspect ratios of up to 12:1, scrolling becomes a necessary requirement to show images at heights greater than 85 pixels. Or similarly 1:12 and more than 85 pixels wide.

 

I think showing them at smaller widths is important, particularly given the associated file sizes, but what's the max?

 

There's probably some wwwboard out there that demonstrates maximum browser widths with a string of profanity.

[trishh]

(Charles' response slipped ahead of mine.)

[janko_belaj]

Trish, I have made a small test (browser is MS IE 5.1 on MacOS 9.2) -

maximum width is 4000 pixels (file had 10000). My Photoshop can't produce

file higher than 30000 pixels, but my browser can scroll that large

picture...<br>

When I had to present such panoramas (mine were 2500 pixels wide and 270

of height) I have created one small - 800 pixels wide and link (with warning)

on larger file.

[pvp]

Mickeysoft's Internet Exploder (v.6) has a feature that will automatically resize pictures to fit the screen. By hovering the mouse cursor over the picture for a few seconds, you get a button that will expand it back to its actual size. This is either wonderful or annoying, depending on your personal prefs. As for an "absolute" maximum, there really isn't one; as the hardware improves, the screen resolution continues to increase. A practical limit is that set by the video drivers, but it too will change over time. On this system, the max resolution is 1600x1200, but I prefer the display one step below that, at 1280x1024. With a bit bigger screen I'd use the higher setting. Personally, I'm willing to put up with scrolling panoramas in one dimension, in order to keep details. I don't like having to scroll in two dimensions.<P>

I guess I rambled a bit there. Sorry. (Not sorry enough to not post it.) :oP

[jeffrey_scott]

NO offense, but what does this topic have to do with LF photography?

[igor_johanson]

Nothing, unless you post your images on internet.

[jeffrey_scott]

I see :-)

[trishh]

Thanks for the suggestions.

 

And I didn't know about that hover-resize nonsense in MSIE6. It explains a few responses I've received regarding troubles viewing very wide images.

 

Thanks again.