Who needs "other sizes: small" ?

[oochappan]

Who needs "other sizes: small" ?
As "small" is the same size of the thumbs ....
Wouldn't it more usefull to change to :

small > 400x300 pixels
medium > 600x450 pixels
large > 800x600 .....

so that photo's would also fit more nicely on a 800x600 screen ....
Your opinion ?

[srijith]

Oh no, please dont touch the small's dimension. My whole website design is based on the fact that small.jpg is 160xsomething.

If I am not mistaken, Pbase uses small for thumbnails on purpose so that they dont have to bother about one more size.

[oochappan]

Oh no, please dont touch the small ...... .

and why not making the medium a little bigger f.i.
medium 500x335 ... or ... medium 600x450
as I notice that still 31% is using a 800x600 screen in Europe, but worldwide it will pass far beyond the 70% I suppose.

[gsrunyan]

Don't delete the small size; it makes life easier for those who don't have high speed connections.

Glenn

[gerrydavid]

Who needs "other sizes: small" ?
As "small" is the same size of the thumbs ....
Wouldn't it more usefull to change to :

small > 400x300 pixels
medium > 600x450 pixels
large > 800x600 .....

so that photo's would also fit more nicely on a 800x600 screen ....
Your opinion ?

Here's a thought, why not the ability to set the demensions of the thumbnails in our preferences? So we can control what small.jpg, medium.jpg, and large.jpg will give you, this way everyone is happy. :0)