Picture resize

[RocketMan1]

I would like to suggest that if you post a picture that you resize it to fit the screen, it's a little difficult to get a good overview of a item when you can only see a portion at a time, not to mention being stuck in the stone age with dail-up it takes forever to load. Just a suggestion.

 

[mciupa]

I would like to suggest that if you post a picture that you resize it to fit the screen, it's a little difficult to get a good overview of a item when you can only see a portion at a time, not to mention being stuck in the stone age with dail-up it takes forever to load. Just a suggestion.

I agree as well ,as I am in the same boat. I'm sure it just takes a little
extra effort to re-format. Besides, a post author has the ability to edit
their postings until they are satisfied with the end result.

It's a little irritating having to scroll left & right to get the full picture. :evil:

A good picture is worth a 1000 word post.

 

[loumaag]

This is a good point. Lots of times users on broadband often forget what it was like to be on dial-up. And scrolling right and left to see a picture is one thing, but having to scroll right and left just to read a post is a real PIA. And this is what happens when an oversized picture gets posted.

Please, if you are going to post a picture, resize it so if fits on the page. If you are trying to bring out some detail, then crop the picture, so it fits on the page.

Oversized pictures have been known to be resized by moderators in the past, but really, if you just consider others before you post, your efforts are appreciated.

 

[DonS]

Good idea, but what defines the size of the "page" or "screen", apart from each user's own, transient settings?

For example, as I type this on my laptop, my browser's window is 1168(H) x 907(V) - 55% of the pixel space on my display. In the "message area" of the forums (where this text appears), on my browser, a 900x635 image will show up quite nicely, with no scroll bars.

(Download time, dictated primarily by file size and user connection speed, is a separate issue. The above-referenced 900x635 image could easily be anywhere from 5 kB to 2 MB, depending on encoding, compression, content, etc.)

-Don

 

[loumaag]

Good idea, but what defines the size of the "page" or "screen", apart from each user's own, transient settings?

Good point Don. I guess I should have mentioned that Lindsay's initial design was to format the site for 800x600 screen sizes. There is some latitude in there, but he used to pound on us (admins) for making descriptions so long as to overlap fields and cause problems on displays such as the TRS entries. :lol:

In any case, most people use a higher resolution than that, but in any case that is a good starting point.