Hello Clint,
This is just the current size of the thumbnail images available -- I'm
not sure if there are specific reasons why each size was chosen, other
than to offer a variety of sizes. Adding additional sizes is resource-
consuming from a caching perspective, so we're hesitant to add
additional sizes.
We have received several requests for this, so we'll certainly keep it
mind. In the meantime, please feel free to click the star on the
following issue to be informed of any updates to this and express your
interest in this feature:
http://code.google.com/p/gdata-issues/issues/detail?id=17
Thanks,
-Ryan
On Aug 23, 2:43 pm, Clintonium <goo...@clintonium.com> wrote:
Currently the cropped (square) option is available for the 32, 48, 64,
and 160 pixel thumbnails, but not the 72 or 144 pixel ones. What was
the rationale behind that? It would make more sense to me if the
cutoff was at a certain size and the cropped option was available for
everything that size or smaller.
Did you guys originally plan to make the cutoff at 64 pixels and then
make an exception for 160 because it serves as the web album cover?
At any rate, I think the jump from 64 to 160 is awfully rough-grained.
Personally, I'd find the 72-c thumbnail pretty useful. I guess I could
CSS mask a 144 pixel thumb to make a 108 pixel square thumb, but it's
a bit less elegant (and potentially a bit less bulletproof) than just
fetching a cropped thumb to begin with.
Are 72 and 144 pixel square thumbs open to abuse in some way that I'm
not seeing? Or am I just alone in wanting them?
- Clint
2 messages in com.googlegroups.google-picasa-data-apiRe: I'm curious... why is there no cr...