I understand the need to specify one dimension of an editable image, so huge images don't break layouts and clients don't have to open Photoshop to resize perfectly, etc...
But why does the width need to be specified? Shouldn't specifying the width or height do the job?
I have an image area that I want to keep the height consistent on but allow for the width to change, but of course I'm running into the "No width for editable image" error.
(I also emailed this request to support, but I know you guys keep a tally of requests so I hope other designers see this and raise their hands as well! Thanks all.)
Hey there, it's great to hear from you! Thank you so much for your email as well - we've passed it on to our devs to check out, as they may have a couple of ideas as to why this is the case.
From a personal point of view, specifying/controlling image widths is almost always the best way to ensure clients don't import an image that breaks the surrounding template/layout (emails generally extend better vertically, than horizontally). However, we're happy to consider either dimension, especially if there's demand for it.
Thanks for the great feedback, enfueggo! We'll keep you posted on this one :)
Sorry, But I too agree with the user. Sometimes, controlling the height is more important in an email layout.
I agree that giving the designer control over one aspect is great, ingenious on your end. But to force us to only width is like asking us to design with half a pallet. We should be able to set height OR width.
In my experience I've always assumed that not specifying width causes images in Outlook 2003 to expand greatly, regardless of their actual height and width
Then would the more stable solution be to allow designers to specify one dimension for editable images, either height or width.
Images uploaded by users are conformed
The system fills out the other ratio once uploaded
I respectfully agree with Redferret here - we've seen far more email client issues with width not being defined, than with height - especially now that responsive design is all the rage. For height control when resizing an image, generally a bit of CSS will do the trick, eg. height: auto;
If you have a specific example in which a layout would benefit from explicitly defining height instead of width, we'd love to take a look and see if there's a good use case for this change :)