3 ms·
I agree. And not to jump on this framework, but you can't just hand-wave away the responsive problem. If you intend to have your site viewed on a phone, you p
by JoelSutherland 15y ago
I agree. And not to jump on this framework, but you can't just hand-wave away the responsive problem.
If you intend to have your site viewed on a phone, you probably don't want to send full-sized assets down the pipe only to have them sized at 25%.
- alanfalcon 15y agoI hate abhor mobile formatted sites that only send me an image reduced to 25% of the size. I can zoom in and see full detail on that full sized image when I want to, but only if you send it to me. At least allow me to tap a reduced image to grab the full asset on my phone. [This applies particularly to photos or any images with small text in them.]
- Chris_Newton 15y agoI don't disagree with the case you described, but as a counter-argument in favour of sending customised resources by default, modern sites frequently use things like image carousels or video. In such cases, you are unlikely to benefit from downloading the full-size resource every time, and the difference in file sizes for reduced-resolution resources can make a big difference to costs and caps for both host and visitor (since mobile plans typically have much lower data transfer caps and/or bandwidth compared to fixed line broadband). Also, if whoever is rendering the original material can send you an intelligently customised low-res version, you can still have well-chosen, pixel-perfect presentation instead of relying on your phone to get the aliasing right when it scales an image down without context and showing the whole image at reduced resolution rather than perhaps clipping it more tightly but preseving some important detail.