Embedded image size update

**marks** · 15th June 2009, 17:49

I'm with warewolf

"dumbing down" the site to suit the 10-20% who aren't on high speed is archaic.

threatening to "lock out" users who post the odd 800x600 image every now and then is simply petty.

I can post 2 640x480 100k images in a post but I can't post 1 x 800x600 200k image - that seems really logical.

clicking on thumbnails completely destroys the continuity of any story.

**warewolf** · 15th June 2009, 18:22

Originally Posted by p.dath

I prefer the thumb nail approach. Sometime's I have to use GPRS, and NZ still has a large base of dial up Internet users. When you download at 5KB/s, running into a 200KB picture makes loading the page a drag.

True, but how often does it happen? And as marks points out, that's the same as hitting 2x 100kb images, which are permitted. If there was a thread intended to share pictures, then surely you would avoid it altogether if at that time you happened to be connected with limited bandwidth? At the moment ride reports on here are the pox always.

Originally Posted by p.dath

So give the user the choice of not loading it.

Your browser gives you that choice. How about giving the user the choice of LOADING it?

You can configure your browser to not automatically download images. That was the default option back when I was working with the early WAP stuff; and I sure made use of that function when I was on dialup. The reverse, asking the browser to show all the attachments embedded, can't be done. So who is really missing out here???

With attached images, loading 'the page' is a drag for everyone. With embedded images, it's only a drag for some.

**sunhuntin** · 15th June 2009, 18:34

i much prefer thumbnails as well. im on broadband.

**rainman** · 15th June 2009, 19:05

Thumbnails FTW.

Haven't you got any bigger issues to whinge about?

**Skunk** · 15th June 2009, 19:46

Why not just make the site work for only people on broadband, Win XP or Vista, IE8, through the Telecom network? It is the majority afterall? Screw everyone else. Will that make it easy enough for YOU? That's what you want isn't it - this site YOUR way?

**SARGE** · 15th June 2009, 19:53

you also have to think for a moment about the owners of the site and the expense to host 35 Tb of images

**warewolf** · 15th June 2009, 20:12

Originally Posted by SARGE

you also have to think for a moment about the owners of the site and the expense to host 35 Tb of images

I'm glad somebody raised that. Although I'd expect it is more the cost of transmitting them than storing them.

Externally-hosted embedded images cost KB $0.00.

**warewolf** · 15th June 2009, 20:12

Originally Posted by rainman

Haven't you got any bigger issues to whinge about?

You don't ask, you don't get.

**SARGE** · 15th June 2009, 20:15

Originally Posted by warewolf

I'm glad somebody raised that. Although I'd expect it is more the cost of transmitting them than storing them.

Externally-hosted embedded images cost KB $0.00.

right .. but the bandwidth of the stored items aint cheap

**p.dath** · 15th June 2009, 20:37

Originally Posted by warewolf

I'm glad somebody raised that. Although I'd expect it is more the cost of transmitting them than storing them.

Externally-hosted embedded images cost KB $0.00.

The site appears to be hosted off shore - where bandwidth appears to be cheaper.

However, I'm a supporter of the thumb nail approach.

**marks** · 15th June 2009, 22:07

Originally Posted by Skunk

Why not just make the site work for only people on broadband, Win XP or Vista, IE8, through the Telecom network? It is the majority afterall? Screw everyone else. Will that make it easy enough for YOU? That's what you want isn't it - this site YOUR way?

with a few minor changes this could be a workable solution

**warewolf** · 15th June 2009, 22:27

Originally Posted by Skunk

Will that make it easy enough for YOU? That's what you want isn't it - this site YOUR way?

You know if you hang around a courier depot there'd be heaps more messengers for you to shoot...

**xwhatsit** · 15th June 2009, 22:33

Originally Posted by warewolf

It's always been a problem. View-on-request in a new window is still disruptive and does have the same delay. (without delay may be because you lightboxed it into your browser cache before testing.)

Sorry, I didn't phrase that right. What I meant is that when you middle-click to open in a new tab (i.e. not loading an HTML page, just simply loading the linked image itself), most browsers start to display the image straight away, line-by-line as it comes in. Unlike the lightboxing used on this site which won't display any of the image until it's completely loaded (whose clever idea was that?). So with the middle-click there's instant feedback and that keeps users happy.

But anyway. Not important.

I like the idea of 800x600... you can easily do that in 150kB or less.

Actually, how about this. Maximum image size 800x600... and total post size of 400kB (or some number, maybe a bit higher). Solves the silliness of 2 * 100kB 640x480 vs. 1 * 200kB 800x600. Given that for most people the pages are broken up into 10 posts or 20 posts or whatever then that keeps the impact down.