Ben Chambers wrote:
> 
> Just a small note, is anyone else here annoyed
> by images that don't fit on the screen?

It diminishes viewing conditions, either when
they're too small or too big.

> I'm running
> at 1024x768, which I had considered plenty, except
> that many entries in the IRTC still don't fit.  Thoughts,
> anyone?

Is there some place on the net figures are published
about such matters? Is the repartition curve sharp?
1024x768 is still widely used around me (myself, under
Windows, included), but I more and more see 1280x1024
or similar sizes (I spend all my time under Linux in a
custom 1200x900 mode... since my Iiyama monitor _has_
1200x900 pixels, physically).

> PS.  Not that the images are bad, but the fact that I
> have to scroll to see the whole thing detracts from
> the quality of the image.

The difficulty to define a standard size made the admin
team remove the restriction. Artists are responsible
to choose an "good" size. It's part of their work. If
more and more artists submit at higher resolutions than
yours, perhaps it's time to follow them?

--
Adrien Beau    adr### [at] freefr   
http://adrien.beau.free.fr/

Post a reply to this message