Modems

[panfer]

I agree with Big Frank.

[pduggan]

Frank, have you actually read this thread properly, especially my first post?

Here's a little reminder of what I said:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I fully accept that this is a graphics/art site and it may sometimes be necessary to do justice to an image...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't want to see images ruined by compression (or have to post everything twice) any more than you do, but there are things which can make life a little easier for all of us (like, as Ross has done, starting new threads occasionally). Remember that the 300K limit was probably determined as much by server space and provision of the option to download rather than the notion that strings of 300K images might somehow form an integral part of the browsing experience...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Most people here know how to downsize an image to reasonable proportions but, as it's a graphic forum, most people also realise that the true beauty and clarity of some images can be lost with jpeg or gif compression...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most? Probably all (and that includes me)!

So start a new thread where possible (not if it unnecessarily destroys the flow) if you want to upload a 300K image, include the size in the subject line if you can be bothered and link to a separate post if you're feeling exceptionally kind, but remember you're preaching to the converted regarding quality and we were only trying to encourage a little extra thought! And, BTW, I agree with you that looking at this site with images turned off is pointless, but I'm sure you know equally well that browsing with text only's not the same as having some idea of what things might look like...



Peter</p>



Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>

[Ross Macintosh]

It is nice to see so many folks agreeing with me. It reminds me of the Silverstein poem about friendship. It goes something like this " I know the way to stay friends forever. I simply tell you what to do, and you do it!" [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

I like the idea of simply providing a link to a larger file you provide as an optional large format view. This can be easily achieved right here in the forums. Here is an example. It is a 59k image hosted right here at talkgraphics.com

How this was achieved was easy but clearly a bit more complicated than just attaching it the usual way. I went to the test forum and started a new topic where I attached my image in the usual way. After it was posted and I was seeing it, I right clicked the image and reveiwed its properties. Those properties identified the url of the image which I copied using ctrl-c. When I wanted to put the link in this message I used the Instant UBB Code choice "url" and pasted in the url I had copied. Upon submitting it, I was then prompted for the text for the link. That's all there was to it. If you want to try it yourself - please practice in the test forum rather than burden the rest of us here [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img].

Using a similar approach you can include images inline in the body of your message rather than as an attachment. Here's an example:

http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...&ul=9931920971

The image was first posted to the test forum. Its url was used with the Instant UBB Code "image" button choice. This method of inline images is a great way to do a tutorial with each step as an image. An example where I used this method can be seen here. In that case the images were on my designstop.com server rather than pre-posted to the test forum.

In conclusion we should all be reasonably sensitive to our friends with low-speed internet connections. I have a cable modem. If you can get one - do so! Not only very fast, it is always on and it doesn't tie up my phone line. I can check my email in about 3 seconds - the same time it takes these forums to pop onto the screen when I click the shortcut on my desktop. Do you have modem envy yet? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Regards, Ross

<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>

[pduggan]

Hi Ross...

Think what you've done there is basically what I was suggesting (hell, no it's not!) except you've parked your images in the test forum. Which brings me to two small points:

1. <LI>I'd considered doing the same (note my suggestion for a forum for this job), but couldn't make up my mind whether or not that was what the test forum was for.
   <LI>Thought my demonstration would make more sense if I parked my image with its 'warning sign' where people reading this thread might see it!

As for the modem envy, I'd have some kind of high speed connection at home if it was a realistic proposition, believe me...

So it's a ridiculous time of the morning here, but I'm nearly on holiday and won't have much work to survive when I get to school today!

Peter</p>

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>

PS Came to my senses and noticed you're linking to the images rather than the threads, which is probably a better idea!

[This message was edited by Peter Duggan on March 29, 2001 at 06:46 PM.]

[Ross Macintosh]

Don't bother putting the image size in the subject line. It won't help unless you also intend to close the thread before anyone else can reply. This forum is not really about the graphics per say - it is about communicating. We are a "community" of people sharing an interest in things Xara. The graphics facilitate a sharing of ideas. Closing a thread as soon as you start it would kill this forum.

It would be nice if the OpenTopic software that powers this forum would inform us as to the total K in each thread. That would be much more useful than having the the size of the thread originator's first attachment.

It would also be nice if thread originators would choose subject lines that are descriptive. Overall I'd say I haven't been too critical of the initial subject lines we've been seeing. They are usually quite good. A thread's contents can of course evolve away from the original subject line. I think we should change things around here so we have no time limit on editing our posts. That way the original subject line could be modified as necessary to reflect the thread's content.

Having no time limit (as happens in the xara gallery forum) would also conserve bandwidth. Forced to by the current restrictions on editing, some users resort to reposting where they would have edited if they could. If I get some support on this issue of time limits I'm sure we (the moderators) could get things changed.

Regards, Ross

<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>

[pduggan]

Hi again! (Sleep, what sleep?)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Closing a thread as soon as you start it would kill this forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never the spirit of my suggestion (if my comments about links made sense), but you'll notice that I must have been updating my last post to acknowledge your smarter variation while you were posting yours...

And I agree (what, again?) 100% about total thread size info!

Peter</p>

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>

[This message was edited by Peter Duggan on March 29, 2001 at 07:11 PM.]

[Ross Macintosh]

Peter - note that my suggested method of using a link to an image deposited into the test forum, results in only the image in the pop-up window. I think this provides more continuity to the post that contains the link. Your example is in effect jumping to another thread and that could be confusing. I think it is unnecessarily complicated.

The gist of this thread is that these forums can, with a little care by posters, be more bandwidth friendly. Everyone, even those of us with a fast internet connection, benefit from a bandwidth friendly approach. (When you get a fast connection, at first it seems very fast. It doesn't take long before consciousness of waiting returns. Fast is never fast enough).

I'm as quilty as anyone of posting large images. I'll try to do better!

Regards, Ross

<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>

[pduggan]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think it is unnecessarily complicated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So do I, but I was thinking on the hoof when I posted it! I like your variation much better, except that your posts (oh yes, I've looked at them!) to the test forum may still attract replies of their own (see PPS below) as separate threads, even though you've tried to discourage that. If only we could have a place here just for parking images to access from other forums, it'd be perfect...

Peter</p>

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>

PS Although you'd still need to be able to get at the properties to check the infopop URL!

PPS Or how do you feel about posting to the test forum with closed topics?

[This message was edited by Peter Duggan on March 29, 2001 at 07:50 PM.]

[Sean Sedwards]

What annoys me more than file size is image width. I hate having to scroll the window horizontally to read the text. My preference would be for images in this forum (as opposed to the gallery) to be less than 640 pix wide. One wide image affects the whole thread.

I've also noted that not everybody chooses the optimum format. PNGs are almost always smaller than GIFs for non-trivial images and sometimes smaller than JPEGs. It's worth using the format drop-down list in X's bitmap export to find the most efficient file type.

So long as the author is aware of the size issue and makes a sensible choice, I'd prefer the image to be posted directly. My own style of viewing the threads is such that I don't usually bother to chase down links unless I'm really interested. Doing so would take a lot longer than just waiting for the pics to load.

Regards - Sean

[Big Frank]

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] OK, let's agree to disagree. This forum works great because it is simple and straightforward.

--
Big Frank was
http://www.wognum.org/files/madewithxarax.gif