25 Jan 12, 01:47AM
(This post was last modified: 25 Jan 12, 01:47AM by Felix-The-Ghost.)
The problem with Lantry's proposal is that you are unable to scale the image proportionately in this manner.
You need both width and height defined for valid HTML.
You could define height in pixels, and have the width 100%, but it would not stretch the image proportionately.
Even stretching to a lower size, users would still need to download the 107KB image.
Forcing banner images to stretch for the minority users (like me with 1024 x 768) looks gross and is mean >:(
Personally I design my sites to accommodate even 800 x 600 users.
In all honestly, that banner takes up a LOT of space, regardless of how pretty it is. (it does look nice). For example, in every page I view, it's impossible to see any user-generated content without scrolling down.
If it were me, I would scale that thing down (the image itself) at least to lower than 1024x768... :(
You need both width and height defined for valid HTML.
You could define height in pixels, and have the width 100%, but it would not stretch the image proportionately.
Even stretching to a lower size, users would still need to download the 107KB image.
Forcing banner images to stretch for the minority users (like me with 1024 x 768) looks gross and is mean >:(
Personally I design my sites to accommodate even 800 x 600 users.
In all honestly, that banner takes up a LOT of space, regardless of how pretty it is. (it does look nice). For example, in every page I view, it's impossible to see any user-generated content without scrolling down.
If it were me, I would scale that thing down (the image itself) at least to lower than 1024x768... :(