@KattMan said:
@DaveK said:
Actually, I'm not part of the anti-JPEG-Jihad round here. The original screenshot was absolutely fine and detailed. The WTF was scaling it down using HTML size attributes and not making it a clickable link to the full version, making it completely not obvious unless someone should happen to right-click and choose to view the image on its own. But how would you know there was more detail to be found in the first place?
Oh that wasn't the joke? And who said anything about JPEG images?
But yeah, if he wants us to focus in on a small piece of his screen capture, why not crop the image to show it easily?
The real WTF is the OP.
I considered cropping it, but then you lose context. I probably could have cropped it some. In retrospect, the size attributes may not have been such a good idea. But without them, it seemed kind of big. Decisions, decisions.
About the click to enlarge, before today, I didn't know the HTML code for that. I've seen it, but never thought about how it was done. That seems to be one thing my Web Programming class forgot. For others who don't know, the code is <a href="path/picture.png"><img src="path/image.png" alt="description"/></a> . Makes sense, really.
Oh, by the way, all the pictures are .png, except the photos, which are .jpg since that is what my camera puts out (pointless to recompress a jpg to png since the artifacts will just show up in the png).
Oh, and here's a cropped enlarged version of the news screen: