See the above post...
Reference the following:
https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=835.0https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=6143.0...pertaining to image sizes and embedded images within posts.
Since the recent transition / upgrade, it seems that the
Insert Image button under
Modify (message) no longer auto inserts the (bracketed)
img /img as it did previously for manually embedding image sizes.
Now instead of using that button and manually inserting and defining viewing width in that manner...
NOW manually inserting size parameters
text strings works to define onscreen viewing of larger files (at a smaller size) for older browsers without using that
Insert Image button.
Here’s an example using a 900 pixel width file embedded with two different display widths, defined in two different strings. (See:
https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=5364.msg54976#msg54976)
Again, refer to:
https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=5364.msg54976#msg54976
It was previously recommended that embedded images be limited to or defined as 300 pixels (keeping in mind limitations of older browsers / smaller screens). For the last few years I’ve been using 600 pixel width embeds instead as base.
So the question here is... for those of you using older browsers, is 600 pixels too much?
Who cares? Well, for those that wish to embed larger, much higher detailed images... and for those with larger screens and newer browsers... an original 1200 pixel width image displays very well on a 20” monitor and is much easier to view smaller details via a “click” on that smaller defined, 300 or 600 pixel width embedded image.
So,
300 pixels or
600 pixels for “clickable” embedded images - from originals up to 900 or 1200 pixels wide?
*And why are these guidelines now under the Off Topic heading?
P.S. Original image used here and on reference page, courtesy of @gert79.