Picture size on TFF

[Hawk]

Got this pm.

***

This picture was in-lined at this post, causing me to have to scroll right to see at least half the picture, which I find very annoying. Although I'm not one of them, I know that some people surf TFF via a modem connection, and I'm sure that 2000+ pixel-wide and full-color pics add strain to modem connections, thus making viewing the page more of a chore.

I think that pictures larger than about 800 pixels WIDE or TALL, or both, should have to be posted as thumbnails, and not be allowed to just be directly posted.

I request this be made a new rule, and provided links just so you can see the post and picture in question.

***

Thoughts?

Personally, I'm torn.

While I'm all for streamlining, removing clutter and reducing unnecessary stuff, that also includes rules.

 

[foesjoe]

Seems like a plausible suggestion to me. I say go for it.

Now, if somebody could tell me how to post images as thumbnails, I'd be very happy

 

[knight_of_ni]

If you go through imageshack it will automatically put it as a thumbnail.

However, if that isn't your image hosting site, and you don't know how to post thumbnails, then you could just post links. Links, also allow much more in each post.

However, I think most people on this site have some wariness of links :sweat2:

 

[locke69]

However, I think most people on this site have some wariness of links :sweat2:

You never know when someone is going to post a surprise yaoi pic, after all. :sweat: Not that would do something like that, I never have or will I. :sweat:

@foesjoe: What site to you use for your image hosting needs?

 

[BakaNeko]

Hawk-sama, I don't think a size restriction is too unreasonable. Is there any sort of limit you can impose on the picture size of posts?

If you do make it a rule, what about those "image" topics? Will there be an exception if someone marks the thread as not 56k friendly?

@foesjoe:

Most imagehosts can let you set a thumbnail, it's usually just a small IMG tag on top of a URL. Personally, in some of those image threads I resize and rehost pics myself. Which is usually best since I too, use a "small" (1024x768) screen.

This is how the link looks at the code level. Notice the -IMG- tags inside the -URL- tags. Doing this turns the picture into a thumbnail link to usually the larger pic.

[URL=http://img158.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1701firecd5.jpg][IMG]http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/4762/1701firecd5.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

 

[lord geryon]

The message sender's initial concern is not valid.

They claim the size of the picture makes it harder to view the picture itself because they have to scroll - which is going to happen anyway due to the size of the picture, whether or not it's linked to or simply displayed.

As for the question... no, I don't think a size limitation should be implemented.

First, the fact that it has taken this long for somebody to complain about a picture that has been up for at least a month and has no doubt been seen by every regular on the board means that either they are new to TFF, or they are simply lurkers that don't sign on but rarely. And why should we cater to noobs or lurkers, especially over such a petty thing?

Second, that image is in a thread in the Lemon section, which is fairly obviously image-laden. I could understand a complaint about a big(as in tall) image was posted in the middle of a text laden thread like a posted story... but in an image thread, someone complained that an image cost them half a second to scroll and see the rest of it? Wtf...

Third, TFF has always been about using minimum rules to maintain a fun forum. And adding a rule for something as truly insignificant as picture size is taking a step towards the dark side.

TFF works fine the way it is. I say we leave it be.

 

[nuclear death frog]

First, the fact that it has taken this long for somebody to complain about a picture that has been up for at least a month and has no doubt been seen by every regular on the board means that either they are new to TFF, or they are simply lurkers that don't sign on but rarely. And why should we cater to noobs or lurkers, especially over such a petty thing?

The PM in question was sent by me. It was sent before I posted a complaint in the thread itself about the picture, on the day the picture was posted. Hawk's just taken a while to make this thread. And I've been a member here since two days after this place opened.

I don't think it's unfair to ask that pictures more than TWO THOUSAND pixels wide be linked or thumbnailed. I'll accept whatever result either way, but scrolling over that much to see a pic will always be considered a niusance at the least. And like I said, some people view this place by modem; they have it worse.

 

[lord geryon]

First, the fact that it has taken this long for somebody to complain about a picture that has been up for at least a month and has no doubt been seen by every regular on the board means that either they are new to TFF, or they are simply lurkers that don't sign on but rarely. And why should we cater to noobs or lurkers, especially over such a petty thing?

The PM in question was sent by me. It was sent before I posted a complaint in the thread itself about the picture, on the day the picture was posted. Hawk's just taken a while to make this thread. And I've been a member here since two days after this place opened.

I don't think it's unfair to ask that pictures more than TWO THOUSAND pixels wide be linked or thumbnailed. I'll accept whatever result either way, but scrolling over that much to see a pic will always be considered a niusance at the least. And like I said, some people view this place by modem; they have it worse.

So I was mistaken about who sent it and when. My bad.

It still doesn't change the fact that linked or displayed, the picture's size won't change. And, given the lazy nature of people(not meaning anyone specific, here or elsewhere), you won't get a warning that a linked picture is massive. So, you click the link and find your machine loading a massive image that you still have to scroll to see it all.

Which, to me, is more of a nuisance than just a little bit of scrolling without having to go through the effort of clicking a link to see one picture, then clicking the back button. Not to mention the delay involved in clicking each picture in a list of links, waiting for those pages to load, then clicking the back button(and waiting for the forum page to reload due to the ads) when, if they were displayed initially, all you have to do is scroll a little to the side, then back, for any massive pictures before scrolling down to see the next picture.

And, yes, it's bad for dial-up users. But, since those massive images always get posted in image heavy threads already, the dial-up users are already prepared for long load times but that's mitigated by the fact that all the pictures are loading at once, instead of having to wait for each picture to load separately.

In the end, in my honest opinion, forcing images, even big ones, behind links will make things slower and more of a hassle for everyone.

 

[biigoh]

Or you could do what people with dial-up have occassionally done with their browsers.

Set it to NOT display images automatically, and then right-click on the image if you're curious and tell it to display. And it'll do just that image and that image alone.

 

[Scratx]

My only problem with image sizes are images that go past the right edge of Firefox's window. For some reason, the scroll bar to scroll sideways does NOT appear if the image is in a post, and thus I can't see the entirety of the post's text AND image.

This may be an issue with the style sheets combined with how Firefox handles them. I don't know if any other browsers are similarly affected.

However, regardless... it's very annoying. <_<

 

[PCHeintz72]

My only problem with image sizes are images that go past the right edge of Firefox's window. For some reason, the scroll bar to scroll sideways does NOT appear if the image is in a post, and thus I can't see the entirety of the post's text AND image.

This may be an issue with the style sheets combined with how Firefox handles them. I don't know if any other browsers are similarly affected.

However, regardless... it's very annoying. <_<

Ehhh... the browser should allow you to hit the right arrow key to see, even if a horisontal scroll is not present.

 

[Souffle]

My only problem with image sizes are images that go past the right edge of Firefox's window. For some reason, the scroll bar to scroll sideways does NOT appear if the image is in a post, and thus I can't see the entirety of the post's text AND image.

This may be an issue with the style sheets combined with how Firefox handles them. I don't know if any other browsers are similarly affected.

However, regardless... it's very annoying. <_<

Your browser is broken. EDIT: What the hell, firefox 3b4 you utter failure.

The forums are at least coded so that images stretch only individual posts and not the entire table of them.

I just knew that image was going to be in this thread as soon as i saw this thing up here. I'll try not to link anything overly large like that, but I really don't see the point in it at the moment unless you're actually having trouble loading the image.

If it's stretching just one post, then it's only that post that you have to scroll to see the entire thing. Other people's posts wont be stretched over, and as a result their text will be left completely fine.

You know, even if you had a 56k modem, I'm positive that the page itself would load before any offsite images did. Despite that picture being about a mere 700kB, it's not stupidly large enough that i'd feel any concern about posting it.

 

[BakaNeko]

Nope, it's just a Firefox thing. An annoying Firefox thing, the horizontal scrollbar appears in both Internet Explorer and Opera.

I don't see the problem why Invision doesn't auto-adjust the pictures to your screen size.

And thats because there are mods to do that...

http://www.postimage.org/mod.php

 

[Souffle]

Nope, it's just a Firefox thing. An annoying Firefox thing, the horizontal scrollbar appears in both Internet Explorer and Opera.

I don't see the problem why Invision doesn't auto-adjust the pictures to your screen size.

And thats because there are mods to do that...

http://www.postimage.org/mod.php

I never liked that idea because it's a real-time resizing of the image, and only after it loads anyway.That's pretty harsh on low-spec computers.

 

[PCHeintz72]

Nope, it's just a Firefox thing. An annoying Firefox thing, the horizontal scrollbar appears in both Internet Explorer and Opera.

I don't see the problem why Invision doesn't auto-adjust the pictures to your screen size.

And thats because there are mods to do that...

http://www.postimage.org/mod.php

It is *not* a FireFox thing.

I just for the heck of it loaded that thread into FireFox (shudders), and it allows horizontal scrolling by use of the left and right arrow key, just as I stated.

Though it could be his specific version. I'm on 2.0.0.12.

 

[nuclear death frog]

2.0.0.12 here also. Will probably switch to version 3 when it comes out; it's supposed to be a hell of a lot faster. Hope it fixes the memory leakage problem a bit also.

 

[PCHeintz72]

2.0.0.12 here also. Will probably switch to version 3 when it comes out; it's supposed to be a hell of a lot faster. Hope it fixes the memory leakage problem a bit also.

Ehhh... as for a rule on sizes... I'm a bit indifferent. Though 2000 wide certainly is excessive. And thumbnails really don't solve the bandwidth problem.

However... I suggest that if Hawk were to implement such a rule, he in one fell swoop implement a size rule for SIG's as well. Listing a vertical and horizontal max size, as well as a maximum resolution or maximum kilobyte size.

That way... no one can complain something is or is not valid, if dimensions and resolutions are clearly stated somewhere that can be referenced when needed.

I know he has a dislike for doing so... but it seems like it is a bit tiresome to see this many threads and discussions on sizing in this forum crop up.

 

[Souffle]

Nope, it's just a Firefox thing. An annoying Firefox thing, the horizontal scrollbar appears in both Internet Explorer and Opera.

I don't see the problem why Invision doesn't auto-adjust the pictures to your screen size.

And thats because there are mods to do that...

http://www.postimage.org/mod.php

It is *not* a FireFox thing.

I just for the heck of it loaded that thread into FireFox (shudders), and it allows horizontal scrolling by use of the left and right arrow key, just as I stated.

Though it could be his specific version. I'm on 2.0.0.12.

I dont think the problem was being unable to scroll, the problem was that there was no scrollbar to use. Though I would have no idea why anyone would use it, Left and right as you said are great to use, and I personaly use freescrolling (Mouse 3)

 

[BakaNeko]

Nope, it's just a Firefox thing. An annoying Firefox thing, the horizontal scrollbar appears in both Internet Explorer and Opera.

I don't see the problem why Invision doesn't auto-adjust the pictures to your screen size.

And thats because there are mods to do that...

http://www.postimage.org/mod.php

It is *not* a FireFox thing.

I just for the heck of it loaded that thread into FireFox (shudders), and it allows horizontal scrolling by use of the left and right arrow key, just as I stated.

Though it could be his specific version. I'm on 2.0.0.12.

No I'm not disputing that you can scroll, just that the horizontal scroll bar does not appear in Firefox. I like those bars, damnit.
Also using the arrow keys to scroll in either four directions is horribly slow.

One line in FF, three lines in IE.

 

[Lord Raine]

Back to the matter at hand, I'm with Geryon. There's no need to set a rule on the size of pictures, not when the user can set their browser to not show images unless you click on them.

To me, it's inconveniencing the many to convenience the few, and that's not something I can support.

Everything else I would say, he's already mentioned. Seeing how it's fairly pointless to reiterate the same points over and over again, I'm pretty much done.