What range of dimensions do you think work well for cards?

Great Question..

The smaller the better - It's best when all five fit on the screen horizontally - but ultimately - for me, it's about the image - it's gotta look good.

Anybody know what the maximum width is that doesn't require scrolling for 5 cards?

Personally I'm more about the look of the cards and so long as at least three can fit horizontally before they wrap I'm happy dimension wise.  Also, because it works with png image files, it's fun to do transparent space in the image and to not make them look like traditional "cards".

Korrun wrote:

Anybody know what the maximum width is that doesn't require scrolling for 5 cards?

Whose screen? 

On the topic of cards... The board designer should be able to rename the wild so long as they give some kind of indication that it is indeed the wild card in the new name and/or picture provided.  The board review committee could decide if it made sense or not.

Currently - Wild is not nameable.  I think this is probably a good thing for the reason berickf alluded too.  It would be yet another thing that the committee would have to be 'sticklers' about.   Maybe if (Wild) was automatically appended to the name - that would be a reasonable solution.

M57 wrote:

Currently - Wild is not nameable.  I think this is probably a good thing for the reason berickf alluded too.  It would be yet another thing that the committee would have to be 'sticklers' about.   Maybe if (Wild) was automatically appended to the name - that would be a reasonable solution.

I'm actually saying I'd like wild to be nameable.  Sometimes the cards fit a theme and the "wild" title totally doesn't fit well, or, sometimes it sort of does in that it's a part of the name, but, you can't amend it to add the rest.  There are many words that could be in the title, or images that could be in the picture that could carry the message that it is the wild card and it seems like a pretty easy thing for the committee to say if they "get it" or not.

M57 wrote:

Great Question..

The smaller the better - It's best when all five fit on the screen horizontally - but ultimately - for me, it's about the image - it's gotta look good.

I actually like bigger cards, because like you said "it's about the image - it's gotta look good.".  Small cards limit what you can portray. 

That said, I think there is a limit where it's too much screen real estate.  They should be as big as necessary to look good, and no bigger.

I've generally kept my cards in the range of 160-240 pixels for each dimension (depending on the appearance and the aspect ratio I want). I think that 250 starts to get to the upper limit of what's advisable for width (probably best to stick around 200, actually).

That seems big to me. I think all my cards are between 80 and 120 pixels high.

Mine are usually about the same as Kjeld - 160-240 in each dimension.  Sometimes a bit bigger even.

My earlier cards were generally smaller, but they've gotten bigger as time goes on.  I think also more people have higher resolution monitors (although I probably have bigger than average monitors at home & work). 

i've got a range of them, the size mostly dependent on looks and what images i can find that match. 

on the smaller side i have them similar to: 128x164 and 200x200

on the larger side i've got: ~330x503 and 480x270