A poll ****** PLEASE READ*******

Topics include, Machine Tools & Tooling, Precision Measuring, Materials and their Properties, Electrical discussions related to machine tools, setups, fixtures and jigs and other general discussion related to amateur machining.

Moderators: Harold_V, websterz, GlennW

Locked

Should we allow pictures that display 1024 pixels in width?

Poll ended at Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:45 am

Yes
45
55%
No
37
45%
 
Total votes: 82

Harold_V
Posts: 17690
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

A poll ****** PLEASE READ*******

Post by Harold_V » Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:45 am

One of the most unpleasant tasks I face, almost daily, is deleting what are very nice pictures that exceed the size limits that have been established for the board. I did so on January 1st, and it was most distasteful for me, considering the excellent pictures that were posted.

I have no personal objections to larger pictures, and have deleted them only because of the inconvenience caused for readers that don't have the capability to view them at monitor settings greater than 1024 x 768. For them, pictures posted larger than 800 pixels in width spreads text off the screen, so they must scroll side to side in order to read the posts. Unfortunately, all posts in a thread that reside on the same page as the oversized picture experience text spread, so it's very inconvenient for many of the readers.

Would you guys/gals please give my your input? Should we allow larger pictures, or should we stick with the 800 x 600 limits now established? The size that provides excellent detail is 1024 x 768.

I will not consider sizes larger than 1024. The question is, should we retain the 800 pixel width limit, or expand it to 1024?

Please vote your choice, and feel free to comment.
Remember, I'm here to serve you folks.

Harold
Last edited by Harold_V on Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Errol Groff
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 8:35 pm
Location: Preston CT

Post by Errol Groff » Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:50 am

800 wide works fine for me. I find the scrolling issue very tedious and annoying and I run a 17" monitor.
Errol Groff

Retired Manufacturing Technology Instructor

Webmaster for New England Model Engineering Society
http://www.neme-s.org

User avatar
Bill Shields
Posts: 5508
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:57 am
Location: Somewhere in the World
Contact:

Monitor size

Post by Bill Shields » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:26 am

I really don't care one way or another.

1024 would be nice, but I am so used to down-sizing photos that it is an automagic thing for me.

I run a 17" monitor on my laptop, and it's 1900 x 1400 resolution.

tomc
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: Sw of the Windy City

Post by tomc » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:35 am

I vote "as is" as I don't like the scroll bar use either when larger are posted.

Tom C.
tom_at_srclry_com
Lost somewhere in Michigan!

User avatar
Bruce_Mowbray
Posts: 644
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 7:45 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by Bruce_Mowbray » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:39 am

Really no reason to go any larger than the current size. If you need more detail one could ask for an up close and personal picture.
Bruce Mowbray
Springville & Southern RR
TMB Manufacturing & Locomotive Works

tmc_31
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:02 pm
Location: Merkel, Tx

Post by tmc_31 » Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:03 pm

I vote that we keep to the 800 pixel limit. I had some trouble early on sizing the pictures right but it was fairly easy to work out. Now I size them before I upload them to photobucket. It is very annoying to have to scroll from side to side to view a larger picture and then the entire rest of the thread to boot.

While I have a dual monitor system with a 21 inch monitor in the office/shop, I usually use my MacBook pro (13" screen) to surf the forums.

Thanks,

Tim
Jet GHB-1340 Lathe, Washington mill/drill (RF31)

User avatar
Frank Ford
Posts: 591
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:41 pm
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Contact:

Post by Frank Ford » Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:03 pm

I, too, am OK with leaving the size at 800., but if'n I had my choice, I'd go for a compromise and raise the image size to, say, 900 or 950 pixels. Fact is we all are upgrading to higher res, bigger monitors along the way, as everything goes quickly into obsolescence.

Being somewhat underhanded, I'd raise the limit to 950 or more, and state the limit at 900, so there would be some leeway in having to deal with oversize photos that happen by accident or novice behavior.

As you may know, I've been posting photos on my Web site(s) in huge numbers for a dozen years now. At first I had a strict limit of 570 pixels wide because that was the limit on Web-TV, and those users could not scroll sideways. Along the way, I've raised my maximum size as it seemed appropriate. I don't exceed 750 for "in-column" photos, and I keep the large thumbnail linked ones to under 1200.
Cheers,

Frank Ford

User avatar
mechanicalmagic
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:11 am
Location: Pleasanton, CA Land of perfect weather

Post by mechanicalmagic » Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:11 pm

I have a question.

When an image of 800x600 is shown by linking I THINK it is viewed larger than an image that is attached. Is this true?

I like the size of the linked image, but think the attachments need to be shown the same size. (Or larger attachments allowed).

Dave J.
Every day I ask myself, "What's the most fun thing to do today."
9x48 BP clone, 12x36 lathe, TIG, MIG, Gas, 3 in 1 sheetmetal.

User avatar
Michael_Moore
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Post by Michael_Moore » Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:59 pm

I very much like to see large, high resolution photos if there are likely to be interesting details that I'll want to look at. But I use 1024x768 and prefer to not scroll sideways especially when that is due to photos I don't want to look at.

One way to get around this issue (and reduce the moderator workload) would be to allow any display-size (not file size) attachment or a URL to pull up an external file but to disable "IMG" tags. That would keep any photo from being automatically loaded into the thread and possibly blowing up the screen display.

If there are no IMG tags then you can link to a huge photo and it won't inconvenience anyone except the person who decides to click on the link and go and look at that huge photo.

I think the administrators should be able to disable IMG tags via a toggle in the administrator control panel.

cheers,
Michael

Harold_V
Posts: 17690
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Post by Harold_V » Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:33 pm

mechanicalmagic wrote:I have a question.

When an image of 800x600 is shown by linking I THINK it is viewed larger than an image that is attached. Is this true?
It is true in the sense that photos that are hosted on the board are displayed as a thumbnail, albeit a rather large one. If one clicks the thumbnail, a new window opens and the photo is displayed at the resolution posted. The board software rejects anything larger than 800 x 600, thus they are never too large to cause text spread, which was our intention in placing limits on photo size.
I like the size of the linked image, but think the attachments need to be shown the same size. (Or larger attachments allowed).
I will keep this request in mind, but I'd like to give readers a few days to add comments, or vote their choice.
Right now, what I've preached right along appears to be true, however, and that is readers do not like to scroll side to side in order to read posts.

I have also concluded that no one pays attention to restrictions, for what ever reason. I have two options in that case. One of them is to spend the time necessary to copy the photos, resize them, then host them on the board, deleting the links, or to ignore them and leave readers with the problem of side scrolling.

If readers had a clue of the amount of time I spend on this board trying to keep it running properly, they might better understand why I have resorted to deleting photos. I simply can not allow others to take more of my time on a daily basis. I likely would abandon moderating first, because I have no time for my own needs as it is.

Harold

Harold_V
Posts: 17690
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Post by Harold_V » Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:40 pm

Michael_Moore wrote:I think the administrators should be able to disable IMG tags via a toggle in the administrator control panel.
I will keep that option in mind, but it is far better for those that post to respect board limits. I've been in the position where pics are displayed only by clicking, and find it inconvenient.

Also, board software is to be upgraded in the immediate future, which will permit a greater selection of options, including the ability to place pictures within text, even when hosting pics on the board. Some of these decisions may have to be made after the new software is placed in service, due to changes.

Thanks for your comment.

Harold

User avatar
alanstepney
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 10:56 am

Post by alanstepney » Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:48 pm

There is very little that NEEDS to be more than 800 wide, so I vote to keep the size as-is.

(On the rare occasions when it is essential to show detail that requires a higher definition, that can be done by hosting it elsewhere and posting a link to that site.)
http://www.alanstepney.info
Model Engineering, Steam and workshop pages.

Locked