Picture size

RoyW · Post by **RoyW** » Mar 26, 2010 5:56 AM

Beemters,

Why do the attached pictures shrink to such a small size?? (I know you can click on them and they increase somewhat)...but, they are much larger when entered and previewed before sending?? They are also larger when loading and before the loading of everything in a thread is complete... then they shrink??

What up with that??

-RoyW

Post by **mooseheadm5** » Mar 26, 2010 2:40 PM

They do that to be friendly for viewing on the average screen size. Otherwise one would have to scroll side to side over and over again to read the text in a thread where someone has inserted an oversized picture. Turn off your javascript and you will see what I mean.

C.R. Krieger · Post by **C.R. Krieger** » Mar 26, 2010 4:36 PM

mooseheadm5 wrote:They do that to be friendly for viewing on the average screen size. Otherwise one would have to scroll side to side over and over again to read the text in a thread where someone has inserted an oversized picture. Turn off your javascript and you will see what I mean.

+1. Some of these guys think we really need pictures three times as wide as our screens ...

Post by **mooseheadm5** » Mar 26, 2010 5:57 PM

C.R. Krieger wrote:
mooseheadm5 wrote:They do that to be friendly for viewing on the average screen size. Otherwise one would have to scroll side to side over and over again to read the text in a thread where someone has inserted an oversized picture. Turn off your javascript and you will see what I mean.
+1. Some of these guys think we really need pictures three times as wide as our screens ...

For certain stuff, I want to see a picture that big when I click on it. For the most part, though, I have no interest in seeing a giant blurry 12MP night shot of what appears to be a car of some description and I don't want is screwing with me easily reading the text.

blur95 · Post by **blur95** » Nov 10, 2010 1:52 PM

While I do really appreciate the resizing, it does save a lot of hassle when people put huge images on the posts, I think your estimate of an 'average' screen size is way off.

It looks like it was sized to be viewed on a 640x480 screen, when the site was designed for 800x600. I do really appreciate the simplicity of this site, but since the image resizing doesn't save any download time, does it need to be so small?

Maybe we could up the definition of 'average screen size' to 1024x768.

After some very short time looking at available computers, the smallest available on newegg is a 1024x600 screen netbook at 8.9"

It would make me, for one, very happy if the chosen image size was increased, or if there was a user option to turn it off.

Thanks,

Ian in Portland

wkohler · Post by **wkohler** » Nov 10, 2010 3:31 PM

Several people do browse on mobile devices. It does suck when huge pictures are sitting on the screen.

C.R. Krieger · Post by **C.R. Krieger** » Nov 10, 2010 11:07 PM

wkohler wrote:Several people do browse on mobile devices. It does suck when huge pictures are sitting on the screen.

X2.

rodpaine · Post by **rodpaine** » Nov 11, 2010 6:42 AM

blur95 wrote:Snip... While I do really appreciate the resizing, it does save a lot of hassle when people put huge images on the posts, I think your estimate of an 'average' screen size is way off.

Maybe we could up the definition of 'average screen size' to 1024x768.

Yes, PLEASE! When I was still doing Email support for my 528e web site, the greatest number of inputs that I received were positive comments about the size and quality of the pictures I used, to illustrate something. Suggesting that 1024 x 768 is a good size is considered the MINIMUM by most good web page designers, as well as by the experts such as Jakob Nielsen, who recently comments on photos as web content. I agree that huge, poorly exposed photos are a waste of my time and bandwidth, as are tiny, fuzzy matchbook size cell phone pictures. I'd like to see larger, better quality photos, based on a 1024x768 standard.
FWIW,
-Rod

Justin_FL · Post by **Justin_FL** » Nov 11, 2010 7:37 AM

Image display resize can be disabled by changing your "Board Style" preference. The new choice should be obvious.

rodpaine wrote:Suggesting that 1024 x 768 is a good size is considered the MINIMUM by most good web page designers, as well as by the experts such as Jakob Nielsen, who recently comments on photos as web content.

The primary content of this site is text, so I do find it quite annoying when there is an inline picture which causes text to run very wide. The fact that many people do not use paragraphs also makes it annoying when this happens. I multitask and generally browse this site as a smaller window, so a picture much more than 600 pixels wide is annoying. Ideally the width preference could be set by the user. But that is not going to happen with this version, although something I want for the migration to phpBB3.

rodpaine wrote:I'd like to see larger, better quality photos, based on a 1024x768 standard.

I'd like to see many things different, but this will never happen... the proliferation of cell phones and other poor quality imaging devices makes it impossible when 95% of the population simply doesn't care.

Post by **Jeremy** » Nov 11, 2010 9:10 AM

Rod, you do know that you can click the resized picture to see the full size version, right? It's the best of both worlds. The text doesn't become difficult to read, and the pixels are still there if you need to see something more clearly.

Jeremy

Adam W in MN · Post by **Adam W in MN** » Nov 11, 2010 1:25 PM

I vote for keeping the current resize specs. Any larger also would annoy me with the text overruns to the edge for people who don't hit return to start new paragraphs.

WilNJ · Post by **WilNJ** » Nov 11, 2010 2:23 PM

Since I've started using this site I've set my BB browser to not download images.

That makes it easy to read text and if it seems like the picture is something I'd like to see, I can choose to download the images.

I've also shut off avatars and sigs which makes the page load much quicker.

Post by **mooseheadm5** » Nov 16, 2010 12:36 AM

One of the beamters sneaked in to the code and added an option to browse without picture resizing. Kudos.

C.R. Krieger · Post by **C.R. Krieger** » Nov 16, 2010 9:09 AM

mooseheadm5 wrote:One of the beamters sneaked in to the code and added an option to browse without picture resizing. Kudos.

That's excellent! Still, we need to stick to "Eye Candy" specs for the really big stuff unless it's necessary and tech-related. A phone browser will still download the entire image before resizing it, so having image-heavy messages often precludes mobile reading. Big Damn@ Picture threads should still go into Eye Candy.

davintosh · Post by **davintosh** » Feb 22, 2011 12:33 PM

C.R. Krieger wrote:
mooseheadm5 wrote:One of the beamters sneaked in to the code and added an option to browse without picture resizing. Kudos.
That's excellent! Still, we need to stick to "Eye Candy" specs for the really big stuff unless it's necessary and tech-related. A phone browser will still download the entire image before resizing it, so having image-heavy messages often precludes mobile reading. Big Damn@ Picture threads should still go into Eye Candy.

Eye Candy Specs?

It would also be nice if threads with lots of huge images could autoresize the full-size images to something more reasonable, like 1280x960 or something more reasonable than the 10Mb files some people insist on posting. Even though images are reduced in size for viewing, it still downloads the full-resolution version when you open a thread. I don't use a phone, but I can imagine some threads are pretty painful to load. Edit: Prime example right here.

MyE28.com

MyE28.com

Picture size

Picture size