Implement a maximum embedded image size

[Tim Gould]

Personally I've always got a bit annoyed seeing embedded images larger than about 500x500px. They take up too much screen real estate and, more importantly, make browsing on small screen devices like phones very difficult. Not to mention the excessive bandwidth.

So I'd like to see a maximum size limit imposed on them. Whether by request or software.

Tim

[Steffen]

I would like it better to be done like in MediaWiki:
the embedded image shows a scaled down version,
and when clicking on it, you get it in full scale.

[Jean-Philippe Ouellet]

I would like my images to be the size that the uploader intended for them to be viewed.

Perhaps this can be a user-settable preference?

[Tim Gould]

Ideally a user option would be best, but it's probably not easy to do.

Given that difficulty I'd argue that a full-size image can always be linked to. This is quite standard for blogs, image sites, wikis and most forums.

[Orion Pobursky]

This is currently not a settable option so we'll have to go the Usage Guidelines route.

[Tim Gould]

Does anyone else have strong(ish) thoughts on this, either for or against?

Tim

[Travis Cobbs]

Can you provide some links to threads on this forum that have big images? My opinion depends somewhat on how the forum software itself handles them.

[Tim Gould]

eg. this one: http://forums.ldraw.org/showthread.php?t...22#pid1622

Which isn't to single anyone out. There is nothing wrong with the post by the current forum guidelines.

As far as I can tell the forum software doesn't handle them at all. It just inserts the image at its default size.

Tim

[Orion Pobursky]

Hold the phone...

I found a module for this. I'll upload and try it out after work

[Tim Gould]

Excellent

[Jean-Philippe Ouellet]

I wouldn't mind something like

2048x1536 1.8mb jpeg, click to view at full resolution.

On the contrary, posts like this one I believe should be viewed at the normal resolution by default no matter what (even if it induces page-stretch) because they are guis with text of 1-pixel-wide fonts, any smaller, and you wouldn't be able to read it, thus entirely defeating the point of having the image in the first place.

Orion Pobursky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hold the phone...
>
> I found a module for this. I'll upload and try it
> out after work
At the time of writing this, things appear to just be super-jpeg-compressed. (smaller files, but not smaller resolution )

[Tim Gould]

I see your point, but provided you can click through to a full-size image you'll always have access to the information at full size.

I'm not sure that allowing page stretch and making the site less accessible in general is a valid sacrifice for a single extra click.

Tim

[Philippe Hurbain]

What about giving the possibility to attach small images (say, max 500px, 50kbytes) directly here to avoid the hassle of external image hosting?

[Orion Pobursky]

Mod installed. Seems to work fine.

[Philippe Hurbain]

Thanks! But the attachment message still lists only ldr, mpd, dat, grp, pov, inc, ini, l3b

[Orion Pobursky]

The mod was for dynamically resizing images, not for attaching them. I can enable that but I think this solution is better

[Jean-Philippe Ouellet]

I am in favor of this option for the sake of ensuring that images will be accessible in the future. I am extremely disappointed and annoyed when I find forums with posts along the lines of:

OH! It makes sense now, you just need to set it up like this

and it works!


I'm perfectly content with using imgur as a photo sharing site for now. It is very simple to use, no signup or anything required, simply select the file and its done. They are already large scale (used by the reddit community almost exclusively), and have yet to loose any photos that I am aware of.

[Orion Pobursky]

I'm reluctant to enable image uploading. The forum software only allows me to limit file size regardless of type. I don't want to limit model file size at all but I would want to limit image size...

[Jean-Philippe Ouellet]

Is there an option for not doing anything to images if they are below a certain resolution, for instance:



from this post appears only 20 pixels narrower and 11 pixels shorter (but still must be processed/re-compressed) and has no reason to have the "pop up full size in a box" effect when it could already be full size on the page to begin with.

Another example is



from this post.

I believe it is silly to have the enlarge feature for such images.

Furthermore (a separate issue), if I want to add an image in-line, I can't. For instance, if I wanted to post something like:

To rotate point x,y counter clockwise by angle θ in a plane, just do and blah blah stuff stuff.

The image (according to the position of the image tag relative to the rest of my text) should appear in-between "do" and "and" but instead, it appears in-front of the entire line, and the surrounding text becomes "doand".

The above example is not perfect. Normally (I believe as is per convention for proofs and such) I would just put the equation on its own line... as I said, it's not a perfect example, that's not my point. My point, is that IMO we should have our images where we tell them to be.

The equation is another example of where clicking on the image has an unwanted/unneeded effect.

[Orion Pobursky]

I'll look into the image positioning problem.

As to the image sizing, any size I choose will have examples of why a certain image shouldn't have been resized. I chose the size I did because it doesn't break the Recent Messages page template on my machine. For small images, I dont think the little bit of Javascript is that intrusive or it is?

[Tim Gould]

Hey Orion,

The scaling system does not seem to uncache its own images even when a link is changed. Which is a problem. I don't expect it to do so dynamically but reposting should make it flush its cache and redraw.

Play around here to see http://forums.ldraw.org/showthread.php?t...23#pid2123

eg. LDraw Discussion Forum should have a blue brick

Tim