Max picture and URL width

[ywouldi]

Im sure I'm not the only one that get frustrated at having wide images posted as it completly screws up the formatting of the page? Are there rules or a forum FAQ that address this? Or are there any ways for the forum software to stop wide pictures being posted; I know its not PH's fault, rather the poster's.

Ben

[PetrolTed]

I'm working on some changes which will allow me to control image sizes on threads and to tidy up the longer URLs.

[ywouldi]

Coolio!

[PetrolTed]

Found a quick solution to the wide pictures problem. That's now been implemented.

[slinky]

Ted, now that the "quick solution" has been implimented, what is the recommended size of image to post...

The new solution appears to re-size images, thus making them look a little skew-wiff...

TIA,

slinky

[PetrolTed]

Anything more than 750pixels wide will get resized.

[luca brazzi]

Why 750 Ted? 800x600 is a standard image size.

LB

And from your stats, do you know what the proportion of visitors view at 800x600, 1024x762 etc?

Thanks


>> Edited by luca brazzi on Friday 18th February 22:50

[PetrolTed]

PH pics are up to 750 in size so that those with an 800x600 don't get scroll bars on the windows containing them.

640 would be better for posting in the forums.

I've not looked at screen size stats for a while.

[PetrolTed]

As for the resizing, it's done in proportion so the pictures shouldn't be squiffy, just over sampled or whatever the correct terminology is.

[luca brazzi]

Ta.

See you Sunday

LB

[miniman]

PetrolTed said:

I've not looked at screen size stats for a while.

FWIW we looked at a lot of WebTrends logs from our various customer sites last year and found that 1024x768 is pretty much as low as it gets these days. Very few people running 800x600.

[PetrolTed]

Thanks, interesting. I'll give some thought to what I can do with that...

[Pies]

miniman said:

PetrolTed said: I've not looked at screen size stats for a while. FWIW we looked at a lot of WebTrends logs from our various customer sites last year and found that 1024x768 is pretty much as low as it gets these days. Very few people running 800x600.

Im running 800x600

[docevi1]

PetrolTed said:

Thanks, interesting. I'll give some thought to what I can do with that...

don't you redirect people to different pages already on the main page - I wouldn't have thought it would be hard to modify that script to change the maximum bounds parameters...

[PetrolTed]

The home page does that and other news pages display a skyscraper banner if they detect that there's room. I was just wondering if a change in approach might achieve anything.

[Size Nine Elm]

miniman said:

...and found that 1024x768 is pretty much as low as it gets these days.

Note some people - well, me anyway - also run with the Favourites side bar displayed, so not all the screen space is available.
Edited to fix quoting faux pas

>> Edited by Size Nine Elm on Saturday 19th February 18:42

[docevi1]

I must say I like the fact that images don't screw up an entire thread, but resizing them means they loose all their clarity - look at the new Caption Competition with the SD1 - there isn't a straight definable line anywhere.

Could the table not be seperated up so that only the cell with the picture in is affected?

[PetrolTed]

Not easily, no.

[docevi1]

but you should know Ted, some of us are never happy

It was just something for you to think about in your next build of GG

[rico]

The software seems to work great with the photos!!!!