Pictures can tell a thousand words

[BadDog]

I wonder if it's possible to configure the board to force ALL attached images to display only as thumbnails of some appropriate size. Being thumbnails, the size could be made relatively small with no harm done. Those who want to see can open the full size, those who lack interest or time can ignore, and no harm to anyone. I've even seen thumbnails to really large images that first clicked to a medium sized image, then click again for the full size. Ultimately it would likely also reduce over-all board bandwidth even while at the same time allowing larger images. After the initial viewing, as each reader revisits to read new posts, it is likely only the thumbnail would be downloaded (even if the cache has times out, or from a different computer, or after reboot with privacy software clearing the cache, etc.)

From what I understand, this software is very configurable and some very creative things have been done, though I don't know how hard something like this might be.

[Harold_V]

I wonder if it's possible to configure the board to force ALL attached images to display only as thumbnails of some appropriate size.

That's the way the board is currently configured, and it works well, assuming pictures are hosted on the board. The fly in the ointment is those that host pictures elsewhere, then have them execute automatically when a post is read.

I have posted, below, a picture of a bowl of gold shot. The size is 750 pixels in width, and 562 pixels in height. Note that the thumbnail is much smaller.

I don't give a damn how large pictures are as long as they don't display when readers attempt to read a post, but my guidelines have been ignored in many case, with pictures display automatically and exceed, by a huge margin, anything that is reasonable in size. As a result, I have turned to simply deleting the offending pictures, which I'll continue to do until they are no longer posted too large. In fairness, few have been deleted of late, for which I thank the responsible parties. The size limit requirement is slowly being observed.

I have inquired of Marty if we can change the maximum size of pictures to reflect the 800 pixel width, with an open end, or limited to 1200 pixels in height, as has already been suggested. I await his reply.

Bill Shields has been very vocal in regards to this issue, and I have to admit that he has nailed the issue correctly. We have to keep those that have limited resources in mind.

This board is provided through the generosity of a humble man that asks nothing in return. The least we can do is repay his kindness in providing a functional and reasonable service for the masses, which was his intention. I am quite convinced that he didn't have an exclusive country club environment in mind. We cater to everyone, with the elite receiving nothing more than the most humble of readers.

Harold

[steamin10]

Harold, Strainin the Goldschlager again?

[tmcd]

My feeling is that the format of the board should reflect a mix of serving the highest quality images possible to the most possible users.

A good part of the world's users who have Internet access still use dialup services. In some cases this is a choice based on finances, in other cases it's because of where they may live.

Many people continue to use what some of us consider simpler, out of date computers because the computer is not a major hobby, or a professional tool for them. The simple system, by some of our standards, was a major investment for them so they can keep in touch with their kids, get the occasional photo of a grandchild, etc. It's a welcome bonus to be able to participate in forums like this one at Chaski.

I do not want to see users driven away from the forum. We don't want to lose out on anyone's metal working wisdom or lose the incredible historical perspective of a retiree with limited funds.

As much as I personally would say "show the high res photos, etc. in-line" that might limit the user base. I would prefer to continue on as we are for the time being and have high resolution versions of images, big PDF's, etc. just offered as a link within the message.

Here's a question out of ignorance about running this forum software... Is it possible to have different settings for different sub forums? For instance, could the General Discussion forum remain as is but a General Discussion - Images forum be created that allowed for the hi-res and large documents? That way the links to big pictures, etc. would still be pointed to somewhere within the Chaski system where a different set of size limts, etc. could be enforced. The "Images" piece of the forum would not contain discussion, just photos and documents. This would let people choose whether or not to download big images, etc.

Tim

[Jose Rivera]

Bill Shields has been very vocal in regards to this issue, and I have to admit that he has nailed the issue correctly. We have to keep those that have limited resources in mind.

Harold

No argument here Harold, but it goes both ways and that is the touchy part.
Is limiting the technology to 1980/1990 standards to the ones using later technology.
As I mentioned, most CRT (unless from the 1980s) can display 1027 X 768 pixels at least.

The connection speed problem is fast disappearing as more and more access to wide-band becomes available, but the core of chaski's decision for limiting size is that people is using very low resolution on their monitor which would be no issue if they would choose one or two notches higher.

Now here, there are the ones that totally refuse to change like a friend of mine that goes and buys a high resolution monitor but refuses to increase the resolution because she likes everything big (no pun intended)

The object of starting this thread was to get input from chaski members about this issue, input with opinions and ideas and it is starting to bring in some new ideas.

[BadDog]

Sorry Harold, bad choice of words on my part. What I meant was for all images in a post to work like that, not just images uploaded to and hosted from the chaski server (attached). If anything inserted using the "IMG" tag got wrapped in HTML that forced a reasonable size and also made that image a link to the original image, then it would work as I tried to describe. And I believe (never done it) that such things are possible when configuring the board software. But I have no idea how difficult it might be.

And for what it's worth, I agree with the no forced horizontal scroll rule. I have a high resolution monitor and still get forced into that on some sites with HUGE pictures. I can only imagine how aggravating it would be with the increased frequency (and magnitude) due to a low res monitor. So if the software can be configured to do that for us, then the rules are automatically enforced without policing. Nobody gets upset due to horizontal scroll. And nobody gets upset from having their pictures either deleted or forced too low res to convey important information that would be helpful to board members. Plus the added bonus of speed/convenience for those revisiting a thread on slow connections, and lowering bandwidth used for chaski. Wins all around...

[BadDog]

It occurs to me the that I've muddied the waters yet again by not carefully choosing my words and re-reading for correct content. Obviously the "save chaski bandwidth" only applies to attached/uploaded images. And as Harold pointed out, the board is already doing that in this case. Doing so with externally hosted images will have no effect on chaski bandwidth nor would it improve performance for those on slow connections. That's because the image would only be forced to small size by the HTML rendering engine, but would still require the full image to be downloaded in order to do so. So please disregard that portion of my post. I think I need to avoid posting unless I have time to calm my mind (from issues like work etc) and focus a bit better...

[toastydeath]

If you go elsewhere on the web, almost all professional websites laid out in a tabular style (column driven layout, with row cells of text) restrict images on the page to LESS than 800 x 600. 640 x 480 is the most common. That should speak for itself.

Large images are unwieldy even with 4000" monitors, and so good design and typography dictate that you not include them inline. To do so is a legibility faux pas, and amateur websites should seek to follow set professional standards for obvious reasons.

[Jose Rivera]

If you go elsewhere on the web, almost all professional websites laid out in a tabular style (column driven layout, with row cells of text) restrict images on the page to LESS than 800 x 600. 640 x 480 is the most common. That should speak for itself.

Large images are unwieldy even with 4000" monitors, and so good design and typography dictate that you not include them inline. To do so is a legibility faux pas, and amateur websites should seek to follow set professional standards for obvious reasons.

If you're talking about 8 or 10 megapixel picture, no argument there.
If you read my original posting what I stress are pictures that contain text/picture data or text alone.

Let's not go extreme here TD. How would you like to receive a picture of something you really have interest on or of vital importance to you and receive something that is just an illegible blur? Faxes fall into this category, to me although Fax is still used, it is old technology.
Telegraph can be put back to use and still help communicate.

That's is the main reason why I felt that this problem could be improved by just allowing a little bigger pictures. It never was my intention for chaski to allow multi-megapixel pictures.

I segregated as regular photos to the usual 800 X 600, but drawings or data with mixed information to be allowed at a higher resolution.

Now, this brings an question to my mind ...
Harold mentions that larger pictures are deleted. Is this done by the software or by the moderator/s ?
If controlled by the moderator/s, then it would be easy to allow important data to be posted at higher resolution so is legible, all other will get clipped.

[Harold_V]

Harold mentions that larger pictures are deleted. Is this done by the software or by the moderator/s ?

Because linked pictures can not be controlled by the software, it is all done manually. I, alone, do it. When I accepted the responsibility to moderate, I did it with the idea in mind of doing the job-----and I do it.

The problem comes from my spending endless time resizing pictures to control text spread. I gained as much as an hour in my day when Marty started the size restriction for Chaski hosted pictures, because a hand full of readers didn't give a damn how large their pictures were. The bigger, the better, seemed to be the attitude. Aside from spreading text, when a large file must download, reading a given thread can turn into a nightmare because of a slow dialup connection. The entire download is delayed, not just the particular picture.

Put this in perspective. Find an old monitor, 17", or smaller, and set it at 1024 x 768. See what others see. All the better would be if you did this with a dialup.

This issue is very much like the one where people enjoy ultra-fast connections. They think nothing of receiving a file that is 10 mb in size, but a file that size used to take the better part of an hour for me to download. I still remember how miserably slow it was for me to read a given thread as it got filled with large pics.

If controlled by the moderator/s, then it would be easy to allow important data to be posted at higher resolution so is legible, all other will get clipped.

Nope! That's unreasonable. How much of my time do you expect to steal from me on a daily basis? Please keep in mind that I spend no less than an hour each day keeping watch over this forum. Many days I spend two or more. I refuse to add more time to my day-----it has to come at the expense of other matters receiving no attention. Believe it or not, I do have a life----this forum is not my only interest.

One of the things that I have learned in my years is that people, in general, will always push the limits. If the posted speed limit is 70, they want to drive 80. If large pictures are allowed to be submitted, leaving it up to the moderator to insure the size is proper, rest assured, I'll spend my entire day on the forum. That's not going to happen, but there are folks that would insure I did by ignoring what could easily be construed as having good manners.

Many fail to understand that if they do not regulate themselves, they will be regulated. Why do you think I have resorted to deleting pictures? Readers either refuse to comply, or don't care enough to be informed of the limitations. In either case, I lose valuable time.

Harold

[toastydeath]

Jose, just like on professional websites displaying exactly what you are saying you want to display, the image should be linked, not shown.

The only difference being that professional webpages host the images locally while on chaski, that means dropping it on one of the free image hosting services and providing a URL to the image since bandwith and server space are limited.

the 800x600 limit should be REDUCED, rather than increased in any capacity. If the image is that important, it should be at a higher resolution and seperate.

[Jose Rivera]

Jose, just like on professional websites displaying exactly what you are saying you want to display, the image should be linked, not shown.

The only difference being that professional webpages host the images locally while on chaski, that means dropping it on one of the free image hosting services and providing a URL to the image since bandwith and server space are limited.

the 800x600 limit should be REDUCED, rather than increased in any capacity. If the image is that important, it should be at a higher resolution and seperate.

Like Ricky Nelson's song " You can't please everyone ... so I got to please myself", from the Garden Party song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_exY9ptMbA

Progress moves on.
Yeah, go ahead and reduce the graphics upload and see what would happen.

What happened with all those nice teaching pictures that you where posting a while ago?