Images 33% Wider on New Sites

1. 65

   eugbugposted 4 years ago

   On desktop, photos are approximately 33% wider. This is a good thing as more detail can be seen, especially text on diagrams and in tables we may need to create in Excel. They seem to be clearer too and less fuzzy. Were images highly compressed on the old sites, losing detail?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      lobobrandonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Not compressed but resized to be smaller due to the maximum width of images on the old design. I am sure the images would also be compressed for SEO purposes, but that kind of compressing usually does not take away from the perceivable quality.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Marisa Writesposted 4 years ago

   Eugbug, I see you're still posting these important observations on forums which the staff don't normally read.

   replyreport
3. 99

   DrMark1961posted 4 years ago

   How is this affecting the images that we have written text on? In the last year or so I have gone back and changed almost all of my images so that they would appear correctly on the Pethelpful main page, and most of them have writing on them.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      lobobrandonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Images are not being stretched, so there's no problem with your images. The text will still be legible. If they are not wide enough they just won't cover the entire available space, that's all. If they stretch images, there's going to be a lot of low-quality pixelated images on the sites.

      replyreport
      1. 99

         DrMark1961posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Great, that is a relief. I would not mind going back and changing the images again since, as we all know, things do change on the internet, but it would take a lot of time and I was concerned about crappy images in the meantime.

         replyreport
   2. 65

      eugbugposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What I meant was that the overall pixel size (both width and height) on desktop is bigger, i.e. photos are taking up a greater proportion of space on the page. That's why I always upload high resolution images in case they are ever displayed bigger or a new zoom facility is implemented. Oddly, when I save the same image from HubPages and Dengarden by right clicking and selecting "save as" , the webp image from the former site is reported as being 520 pixels wide and the latter is 1200 wide. So "save as" saves the full resolution image, rather than the pixel size in the viewport which would make sense.
      There's another discussion about the aspect ratio of wide format images used beside the summary of articles and how cropping affects text on the image. I'll see if I can find which thread it's on.

      replyreport