Brian
Joined: Feb 25, 2006
Posts: 19276
Des Moines, Iowa, USA
|
Posted on Oct 14 2011 10:08 PM
Gonna try something soon to "tame the giant images" that people love to post. Large images will get limited and scroll bars will be put around them.
Feedback appreciated after it goes live (soon).
— Site dude - S3 Agent #202
Need help with the site? SG101 FAQ - Send me a private message - Email me
"It starts... when it begins" -- Ralf Kilauea
|
JakeDobner
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 12159
Seattle
|
Posted on Oct 14 2011 10:26 PM
What do you mean by limited? Memory size? If I put an image in this post, would that take memory on the SG101 server? Or does it always get the image from the source?
Or do you just mean limited, as in it goes into the scroll bars? Is it presumed everyone is using a 1280x800 with the window maximized? I can't imagine any less than 10% of the people using a smaller window.
I'm surprised there isn't code written for forums that scales down(proportionately) the image to the browser windows size. Never scaling up though.
|
JakeDobner
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 12159
Seattle
|
Posted on Oct 14 2011 10:30 PM
Test...
|
Brian
Joined: Feb 25, 2006
Posts: 19276
Des Moines, Iowa, USA
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 09:03 AM
The current forum design, like it or not, is fixed width. Your image above is an extreme example of one that breaks the design.
I would add javascript that would go through the images in the thread and either put scrollbars around them (so it would be like looking through a key hole) or uses CSS to rescale them to something smaller.
Of course maybe I'm the only one that is bothered by all this and I should just do nothing.
— Site dude - S3 Agent #202
Need help with the site? SG101 FAQ - Send me a private message - Email me
"It starts... when it begins" -- Ralf Kilauea
|
Noel
Joined: Mar 15, 2011
Posts: 8528
Back in Piitsburgh, Pennsylvania, where I grew up.
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 09:23 AM
Go ahead, Brian. Once a huge image is added, it makes a nuisance of reading posts. I, for one, would appreciate the convenience. Can you make it so if we click the image, it can open full-size in a pop-up?
— This is Noel. Reverb's at maximum an' I'm givin' 'er all she's got.
|
JakeDobner
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 12159
Seattle
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 11:17 AM
Brian wrote:
Of course maybe I'm the only one that is bothered by
all this and I should just do nothing.
It is something that is rather important, in my opinion, for you to implement. I can cope with large images and it doesn't detract from my experience, but it isn't great presentation to new visitors. Implementing the CSS or java scroll bars will just make the site look tidier, and that can never be a bad thing on a forum.
|
Ariel
Joined: Aug 29, 2009
Posts: 1556
Israel
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 12:24 PM
A solution like scaling down the image and click-for-full-size would be the best option IMO. Scroll bars on images is a no-no from a design POV.
Thanks for addressing this, it's been rather annoying as large images tend to break the text flow. I usually use the Firefox extension Nuke Anything Enhanced to just make it go away...
|
Brian
Joined: Feb 25, 2006
Posts: 19276
Des Moines, Iowa, USA
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 12:46 PM
I decided on scrollbars because it would still let you see the original image if you wanted.
Making it pop-out in full size would also solve that problem, but might be slightly harder to do. But I'll look into it.
Phase 1 might be scrollbars and phase 2 might be a pop-out.
— Site dude - S3 Agent #202
Need help with the site? SG101 FAQ - Send me a private message - Email me
"It starts... when it begins" -- Ralf Kilauea
|
seafoam_johnny
Joined: Jul 27, 2007
Posts: 1099
4 faces. (Where the buffalo roam)
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 01:08 PM
You're not the only one bothered by this Brian. I post large pictures only because I don't know of any other way and I do feel a little bit bothered when I see what I've done to a thread (like last night when I posted a pic to the DD tour announcement thread) I didn't mean to. Honest!!!!
Brian wrote:
Of course maybe I'm the only one that is bothered by
all this and I should just do nothing.
|
UnsteadyFreddie
Joined: Feb 28, 2006
Posts: 2979
Hell\'s Kitchen, NYC
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 01:37 PM
going forward I will only post reduced versions of my SURF-ROCK SHINDIG posters
sorry if the ones I've posted have pissed anyone off
won't happen again
UNSTEADY FREDDIE
— http://www.facebook.com/unsteady.freddie
|
Brian
Joined: Feb 25, 2006
Posts: 19276
Des Moines, Iowa, USA
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 03:26 PM
Freddie, I don't recall your flyers being overly large. The purpose of this thread wasn't to shame anyone. I realize not everyone knows their way around image sizing, and not everyone notices some online services automatically create different size versions of photos.
— Site dude - S3 Agent #202
Need help with the site? SG101 FAQ - Send me a private message - Email me
"It starts... when it begins" -- Ralf Kilauea
|
UnsteadyFreddie
Joined: Feb 28, 2006
Posts: 2979
Hell\'s Kitchen, NYC
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 03:30 PM
don't feel 'shamed', mind you
just trying to adhere to what's being said here
goin' with the flow, if U know what I mean
I started with a picture of JEFF BIG TIKI DUDE's Birthday Cake in my Baja Marty Videos Thread, by way of example
UNSTEADY FREDDIE
— http://www.facebook.com/unsteady.freddie
|
Brian
Joined: Feb 25, 2006
Posts: 19276
Des Moines, Iowa, USA
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 05:09 PM
I put in a simple bit of javascript to resize large pics. You probably have to clear your browser's cache to get it to work for you. You'll know it works if you see Jake's mega cat (above) not stretch the forums any more.
My only concern with doing this is that it might slow down or lag your browser. Let's just run like this for a while and see how it goes. If there are no problems with this technique then perhaps in the future I can add a "click to display full size" feature.
— Site dude - S3 Agent #202
Need help with the site? SG101 FAQ - Send me a private message - Email me
"It starts... when it begins" -- Ralf Kilauea
|
JakeDobner
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 12159
Seattle
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 05:58 PM
Brian wrote:
Making it pop-out in full size would also solve that
problem, but might be slightly harder to do. But I'll
look into it.
Right-click "open in new tab"!!!
|
Brian
Joined: Feb 25, 2006
Posts: 19276
Des Moines, Iowa, USA
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 06:31 PM
That's a good idea. I could make it hot linkable but open in a new tab/page.
— Site dude - S3 Agent #202
Need help with the site? SG101 FAQ - Send me a private message - Email me
"It starts... when it begins" -- Ralf Kilauea
|
Ariel
Joined: Aug 29, 2009
Posts: 1556
Israel
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 09:02 PM
Works great!
Also in Firefox for full image: Right click - View image
Good enough as it is (perfect actually, unless you wanna get fancy, like mouse-over zoom or stuff...)
Since you're getting real good at this ... how about an option to upload a pic file directly to the site (skipping the whole external image hosting process)- I'm sure it's been brought up before. Can surely save a lot of headache for some.
|
Brian
Joined: Feb 25, 2006
Posts: 19276
Des Moines, Iowa, USA
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 09:10 PM
DreadInBabylon wrote:
how about an option to upload a pic file directly to the
site (skipping the whole external image hosting
process)- I'm sure it's been brought up before. Can
surely save a lot of headache for some.
It's come up a few times. The last guy was very vocal about it. I've been reluctant to take that on in the past. I'd probably have to implement quotas and it quickly gets a bit complicated.
— Site dude - S3 Agent #202
Need help with the site? SG101 FAQ - Send me a private message - Email me
"It starts... when it begins" -- Ralf Kilauea
Last edited: Oct 15, 2011 21:17:59
|
seafoam_johnny
Joined: Jul 27, 2007
Posts: 1099
4 faces. (Where the buffalo roam)
|
Posted on Oct 15 2011 10:33 PM
Worked for me
|
JakeDobner
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 12159
Seattle
|
Posted on Oct 16 2011 02:17 AM
Brian wrote:
DreadInBabylon wrote:
how about an option to upload a pic file directly to
the
site (skipping the whole external image hosting
process)- I'm sure it's been brought up before. Can
surely save a lot of headache for some.
It's come up a few times. The last guy was very vocal
about it. I've been reluctant to take that on in the
past. I'd probably have to implement quotas and it
quickly gets a bit complicated.
Never ever do this. Forums should never have this option, the user should store the data himself, personal storage is cheap/free, forum storage actually costs money. Youtube, soundcloud, and imgur exist for a reason.
|
Ariel
Joined: Aug 29, 2009
Posts: 1556
Israel
|
Posted on Oct 16 2011 04:05 AM
JakeDobner wrote:
Never ever do this. Forums should never have this
option, the user should store the data himself,
personal storage is cheap/free, forum storage actually
costs money. Youtube, soundcloud, and imgur exist for a
reason.
Hmmm good point. OK that makes sense.
I should add that I have no prob whatsoever with the current method. Just that, like Brian already mentioned, some people may.
Also, if it's great or important footage (like Madeira's studio pics, historic gigs or Wronsky's gear ) it may not be the best idea in the world to trust a 3rd party. Companies do fall, servers do get shut down, policies do change etc...
I view this (SG101) site as a great archive, a rock solid monument. Like the Tiki's- heavy & untouchable. Still, probably, the real good stuff can mostly be recoverable if anything happens. I trust Brian's judgement.
|