Quote:
Originally posted by mouse31e+Jan 22 2005, 01:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mouse31e @ Jan 22 2005, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-xoopx@Jan 22 2005, 12:29 PM
why on earth would they let the height be up to 100, and the width 500 but not at the same time? the height=100 version already takes up 100 pixels of someones page, so shortening the width is completely pointless.
|
But a 100x500 pixel image is 50000 pixels while a 100x100 pixel image is only 10000 as is a 20x500 pixel image. The difference in filesize and loading time would be fairly significant though, as you say, visually it would make very little difference! [/b][/quote]
thats true, but they could still set a maximum filesize, and if people could fit one into that size (png-8 format maybe?) then it would be all good.
for me, as long as a banner doesnt make the horizontal scrollbar appear at 1024x768, im not bothered. its the HEIGHT thats all important. too high and its too intrusive and also means people have to scroll more.