Unfortunately one more time: image width

  • Author
  • #778418


    For Dusk I use a maximum jpg width of 477 pixels, including 2 for the border. I just read that I also have to calculate two times 4 pixels for.padding, I didn’t know that. Now that totals 485. I also read that some browsers cannot handle these broad images well, and I want to please all visitors, even the ones with crummy browsers. But I need to review the the width of the template, I never wrote it down and can’t find it in FAQ as Dusk is no longer a feature. Does anyone know by heart what the advised maximum width of an image is in this template?

    [NSFW link removed from public forum]

    Due to the Mature application on my weblogs (my own choice) my nickname here in the forum is not linkable.)

    The blog I need help with is proofpagetwo.wordpress.com.



    See here: http://wpbtips.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/maximum-image-width/

    For Dusk, 494 pixels wide is mentioned and IMHO that certainly not a broad image as far as images go.

    I’m not certain what you mean by “crummy browsers” but you might want to encourage your visitors to upgrade to newer versions just because of security issues with older browsers. Fortunately the people at Automattic have put together a page called “Browse Happy” which conveniently lists all of the browsers with links to their download pages.


    Sorry Jen, I just corrected that: the right maximum is 475px.

    @sgreifwonder: What 2 pixels for border and two times 4 pixels for padding? Dusk isn’t like that.



    Oh? OK. But the border is the one that I put around it, so I add it in the total.

    You think crummy browserusers will take my advice? I got a lot of messages, ‘I don’t know if something is wrong with my pc or yours, but’, and ‘your weblog looks very odd’, TOTAL PANIC, until I was explained that this is spam.

    I remember how a 500 pixels img got shoved under the widget bar, so I’ll keep the images at 477. Thanks for the info, I just wanted to be sure.


    Crummy browsers = Explorer, and crummy browserusers are all those people who keep using it just because Microsoft has planted the thing in their PCs. (I’m a Mac user, but if I had to use a PC my very first move would be to download Firefox or Safari and trash IE.) The only way to make sure you’ll have no issues with Explorer is upload the images to your blog after you presize them to the desired displayed dimensions.

    Now, I guess you read a related reply of mine in another thread, but that was about a different theme. In Dusk, images aligned none or center have no padding and no border. The width of the main column in Dusk is 495px, but it has 10px padding left and right, so this leaves 475px for properly aligned images – and I mean 475px including the border you add.



    You stress 475px including added (Irfanview) border, whereas I come to 477. Certainly, with a column width of 495 it doesn’t make that much difference? I mean, with my Firefox browser, I don’t see any inconveniences when I overextend into for instance 480, which sometimes happen when I glue two pictures horizontally together and add a small grey separation bar between them).

    Once in a while I active IE to see for myself, nothing wrong there except that sharpness and colors of the page are a little less, compared to Firefox. With other browsers I have no experiences. I keep an eye on Google Chrome, though.



    two pictures horizontally together and a small grey separation bar

    what I mean you can see here:


    I stressed that to be ok with the maths, but I was wrong all along: I misinterpreted a detail in the CSS of the theme, so I have to say sorry again Jennifer and sorry sgreifwonder! As you can see, your 477px wide image is still a bit narrower than the text column or the comment box. Maximum width in Dusk is 495px.



    Ah yes, of course… the width of the text indicates the maximum of what you can put in the lay out space.
    OK, I’ll keep it as it is.

The topic ‘Unfortunately one more time: image width’ is closed to new replies.