PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Photos/Thumbnails/Links


Rich Silfver
04-01-2006, 11:08
Disclaimer: Any options discussed here are a) Not discussed with the site owner Jorge or b) even checked to see if the software could handle a change - so it's purely a discussion for discussions sake and IF something comes out of it - cool.

The question at hand is:
In W/NW threads - would you like to;

1) ONLY see FULL size images (note: this would require a link to an existing upload AND be heavier on the download),

2) Use thumnails (click on them to make them larger...click back to return to the thread), or

3) Use links (no thumbnail - just a link, makes downloading the fastest).

Fedzilla_Bob
04-01-2006, 11:10
thumbnails

jonasv
04-01-2006, 11:13
Full size photos in W/NW threads. Thumbnails everywhere else (well, not in the gallery..).

FrankS
04-01-2006, 11:14
Dial up is the only option for some folks. I don't think we should abandon them because clicking on a thumbnail is too troublesome for others.

A word of caution: everyone must keep in mind that for the dial up users, viewing full size images in threads will be a much more significant problem than it is for those who dislike having to click on thumbnails to view the images.

I don't think it would be fair to decide this by a simple majority (50% +1) since the outcome will have a much greater effect on some people than others.

VictorM.
04-01-2006, 11:16
I like the thumbnails.

Rich Silfver
04-01-2006, 11:16
But how about if 75% of members are for full size images only in w/nw threads? :)

Once again..this is only for discussion, heaven knows what would even be technically possible..

Andy K
04-01-2006, 11:16
Fullsize photos. I much prefer just scrolling through a thread, rather than click thumbnail, wait for it to open, hit back button, do it all again for the next thumbnail etc. etc.

I would say though, that a maximum image size would need to be agreed for images shown full size in threads. say between 650 and 800 pixels on the long side.

Rich Silfver
04-01-2006, 11:18
Yeah, a max limit would be good - both for image and file size.
Say, 650 on the long side and 150K for instance.

FrankS
04-01-2006, 11:20
Discussion is good!

I have a problem when a thread loads that contains large images as opposed to thumbnails: the page jumps around like crazy for quite a while as the large images load. Does that happen to anyone else? With thumbnails, this doesn't happen, so I'm stating my preference for thumbnails as opposed to large size images in threads.

Ken Ford
04-01-2006, 11:41
A page full of 150k images is very painful on dialup!

Socke
04-01-2006, 11:42
Dial up is the only option for some folks. I don't think we should abandon them because clicking on a thumbnail is too troublesome for others.


When I'm on a slow line, I don't look at pictures, and thus W/NW threads, anyways.

But following a W/NW thread with thumbnails is like reading Unix documentation.

Can we compromise on something around 500 pixel width as on p.net?

Ken Ford
04-01-2006, 11:50
When I'm on a slow line, I don't look at pictures, and thus W/NW threads, anyways.

But following a W/NW thread with thumbnails is like reading Unix documentation.

Can we compromise on something around 500 pixel width as on p.net?

You'd be banishing us dialup users from W/NW threads. There's a reason Vb supports thumbnailing.

A single page of pic posts takes about ten minutes to load here... and we have no option for high speed Internet available until later this year (my city is putting up a free WiFi cloud).

pesphoto
04-01-2006, 12:00
Im for thumbnails. I do like the idea of making them slightly bigger. While my computer and can handle the full size photos, I dont like waiting for them to load and those on dial up are at a big disadvantage.

Socke
04-01-2006, 12:02
Ken, I know. Since I'm in my weekend hideaway I use my mobile at the moment, 64kb/s up and 384kb/s down.

No plans for any broadband connection here, but we may get faster 3G service this year.

FrankS
04-01-2006, 12:04
Do any of you software wizzards know if thumbnails can be user-configured as an option if full-size photos are submitted? That would keep everyone happy.

Would it be possible, as jvx suggested, for thumbnails to show up in all threads except the words/no words threads where full size pics (with size limits) are displayed?

Rich Silfver
04-01-2006, 12:11
Wouldn't it be great to have a user option in your setting where you could chose to have attachments displayed as thumbnails or full size...?

Ah to, dream....

FrankS
04-01-2006, 12:14
Is that not possible, Rich?

Rich Silfver
04-01-2006, 12:16
I believe RFF is using an off-the-shelf forum software tool and I don't know what options there may be when it comes to customizing it. IF that option could work that would be excellent of course. [This is where we should rub the bottle and summon Jorge] :)

dmr
04-01-2006, 13:12
I just noticed in the thread of the 0.95 lens, the attachments don't show up visible at all. :(

I prefer thumbnails, and that's what I answered to the question here, but any image at all is much better than a link.

Socke
04-01-2006, 13:14
There is a Message Attachment Option called "View Attached Images Inline" and another called "Enable Thumbnails" mentioned in the online documentation for vbulleting. But they refer to the inline help. Typical for Unix documentation, when you find the topic you're searching for, there is a reference to another book youd don't have at hand :)

Socke
04-01-2006, 13:21
Disregard my last, you can switch images on or off but it's for both, attachements and images linked from other sources.

Socke
04-01-2006, 13:28
Ok, so here is how it works :)

go to User CP, from the Control Panel choose Edit Options and disable Show Images from the Thread Display group.

Images linked from other sites are replaced by clickable links which open in a new window.

Don't know about the tumbnails since they don't work at the moment.

peterc
04-01-2006, 13:30
I have no real preference between thumbs or inline images.
I generally keep web images at 640 on the long dimension and under 100K (under 80K if possible) so as to not inconvenience dialup users too much.

Peter

ch1
04-01-2006, 13:43
I voted for the thumbnails because I think a thread loads quicker if you don't have full scale images on the upload.

That may be just my perception.

Nikon Bob
04-01-2006, 14:48
I vote thumbnails and the use of size restrictions alraedy in place for the gallery. I think it is a good all around compromise.

Nikon Bob

Simon Larbalestier
04-01-2006, 15:31
Thumbnails, Rich.

Bertram2
04-01-2006, 16:13
The thumbnail mode is bothering because it takes a lot of time to reload the whole site after you watched the pics. If you go there only periodically and watch 8 to ten photos one after the other this procedure eats time.
In general it would be nice IMHO to see these photos (linked) in a separate gallery, accessible also from outside the thread. The thread must stay tho in any case as the place of communication and announcement.

If this is not possible I'd prefer full size photos , limited tho to let us say 600X400 and let's say 150KB ?

bertram

ch1
04-01-2006, 16:58
The thumbnail mode is bothering because it takes a lot of time to reload the whole site after you watched the pics. If you go there only periodically and watch 8 to ten photos one after the other this procedure eats time.
In general it would be nice IMHO to see these photos (linked) in a separate gallery, accessible also from outside the thread. The thread must stay tho in any case as the place of communication and announcement.

If this is not possible I'd prefer full size photos , limited tho to let us say 600X400 and let's say 150KB ?

bertram

Betram,

You do not have to reload the site after each thumbnail.

Just use the return arrow at the top of your browser!

You will then go back to the thread post you were viewing.

I used to believe as you did and was really frustrated until I "reprogrammed" my mindset. ;)

Gabriel M.A.
04-01-2006, 17:10
I'd vote for "all of the above". Where is it?

Gabriel M.A.
04-01-2006, 17:19
Hmm...given the percentages, I'll do the Survivor/Weakest Link thing and vote "strategically", not "accordingly"...

Bertram2
04-01-2006, 17:50
Just use the return arrow at the top of your browser!

You will then go back to the thread post you were viewing.

I used to believe as you did and was really frustrated until I "reprogrammed" my mindset. ;)

Hmm, I am not as dumb as you might think, that is what I usually do, George. What did you suppose me to do ?
The jump back needs 6-7 sec if the server is fast, and then the site content must be built up new indeed, 2-4 seconds again if you are lucky. You LEAVE the site hitting the thumbnail, there is NO additional browser window opened which you can open and close while leaving the thread site untouched.!
And jumping back I never hit the thread from where I jumped off to the pic, must scroll back then.

bertram

peterc
04-01-2006, 17:54
The jump back needs 6-7 sec if the server is fast,
right click on the thumb and open in a new window. to go back ... just close the window.

Peter

Doug
04-01-2006, 23:28
I agree with PeterC... that's pretty much what I do, but my browser supports tabbed windows, so I just open the thumbnail or link in a new tab. Sometimes especially handy to load several images into new tabs and then it's fast to click through them for comparison. Of course very fast to close any new tab too, or switch back to the thread's main tab.

Socke
04-02-2006, 03:01
And how many of you disabled the "Show Images" option in the User CP?

c.poulton
04-02-2006, 03:09
Thumbnails - more choice, and works better for us folks who only have access to smaller screens.

Bertram2
04-02-2006, 03:50
right click on the thumb and open in a new window. to go back ... just close the window.

Peter

Does not work with my browser, i see a icon only, no real thumbnail pic. But maybe my CP setup is wrong, will check it
If i can get a thumbnail enlarged in separate window it would be o.k. for me, no changes necessary then for me.

bertram

Bertram2
04-02-2006, 04:00
Does not work with my browser, i see a icon only, no real thumbnail pic. But maybe my CP setup is wrong, will check it
bertram

"show images" was and s enabled, can see an icon only anyway, no thumbnail pic.
bertram

Socke
04-02-2006, 04:05
Right click on thumbnail, scroll down to open in new tab, click, click on new tab, close new tab, repeat.

I'm just too lazy for that. Usualy I look at the thumbnails, which are around 2/3 x 1 inch on my screen, and open one or two from the first page of the thread.

Bertram2
04-02-2006, 04:10
Right click on thumbnail, scroll down to open in new tab, click, click on new tab, close new tab, repeat.

I'm just too lazy for that. Usualy I look at the thumbnails, which are around 2/3 x 1 inch on my screen, and open one or two from the first page of the thread.

Got it working this way now, could live with it, tow clicks instead o one. At least this way I land where I started from. Sepearate window automatically would be fine tho.

bertram

Socke
04-02-2006, 04:52
bertram, in german mozilla 1.5:

Extras -> Einstellungen -> Tabs -> Links, die das öffnen in einem neuen Fenster erzwingen -> in einem neuen Tab aktivieren.

oftheherd
04-02-2006, 05:05
If I understand correctly, thumbnails have to be it. As many have mentioned, all they have is dialup. It is also all they can get, either they can't afford DLS or Cable, or it isn't available to them.

They shouldn't have to put up with imposed downloads that allow you to brew coffee and read unix manuals, twice.

The rest of us with our speed can absorb any other inconvenience.

Bertram2
04-02-2006, 05:13
bertram, in german mozilla 1.5:

Extras -> Einstellungen -> Tabs -> Links, die das öffnen in einem neuen Fenster erzwingen -> in einem neuen Tab aktivieren.
Volker,
I use Firefox V 0.9.3, English, different set up menues. Thanks anyway,
bertram

Socke
04-02-2006, 05:15
Volker,
I use Firefox V 0.9.3, English, different set up menues. Thanks anyway,
bertram


Sorry, I meant to say Firefox, mozilla is so deep into my brain that I can't adjust to the real name :)

You should update as soon as possible to a current version, even Firefox isn't free from bugs and potential security holes.

Socke
04-02-2006, 05:27
If I understand correctly, thumbnails have to be it. As many have mentioned, all they have is dialup. It is also all they can get, either they can't afford DLS or Cable, or it isn't available to them.

They shouldn't have to put up with imposed downloads that allow you to brew coffee and read unix manuals, twice.

The rest of us with our speed can absorb any other inconvenience.


Yes, but those on slow lines CAN set an option in the User CP NOT to download inline images and get clickable links instead.

But if the majority wants thumbnails only, so be it.

Ken Ford
04-02-2006, 17:11
The difficulty with clickable links instead of thumbs is that dialup users must click the link to see if its a picture they want to view!

RayPA
04-02-2006, 17:14
the one (only) thing interesting about the links was the click count that was included alongside the link.




:)

sf
04-03-2006, 00:14
This seems painfully obvious. . . . but for the last option, none of the others even make sense.

pvdhaar
04-03-2006, 00:33
IMO, there's no advantage to using links to speed up things. You'd have to click on them anyway to see what's in there. It'd be worse than inline full size pictures. So, thumbnails it is..

Apart from the performance side of things, there's a decided visual plus to seeing thumbnails first. The abstraction they provide often shows compositional characteristics much better/earlier than full size images. They often provide a clue about how to best 'read a picture'..

Rich Silfver
04-03-2006, 01:56
IMO, there's no advantage to using links to speed up things. You'd have to click on them anyway to see what's in there. It'd be worse than inline full size pictures. So, thumbnails it is..


As much as I hate both links and thumbnails - I think the reasoning behind why links would be faster is when you RETURN to a thread where you have viewed all but the last/latest posts. That way you only open those and the rest are just quickly loaded links.

Me, I want the photos displayed full frame all the time and darn, I'd love for that to be an option in your settings - that way everyone would get their way :)

sf
04-03-2006, 02:28
OK, Rich. If we displayed all the images "full frame all the time", it would be one highly difficult gallery page to navigate. One would have to be scrolling like a mad man, and god help people with small monitors or old mice with sketchy balls. Man that sounds funny. . .

Full frame all the time would be a UI nightmare. Like a sports car with one gear and brakes that are either ON or OFF.

Rich Silfver
04-03-2006, 03:06
OK, Rich. If we displayed all the images "full frame all the time", it would be one highly difficult gallery page to navigate. One would have to be scrolling like a mad man, and god help people with small monitors or old mice with sketchy balls. Man that sounds funny. . .

Full frame all the time would be a UI nightmare. Like a sports car with one gear and brakes that are either ON or OFF.

"A highly difficult gallery page to navigate"

Well, you scroll up....or down....
Your user settings allow you to set how many threads per page and the software is clever enough to bring you to the 'latest' you've read.
Not sure I understand the concern.

"God help people with small monitors"
You don't have to display all photos within one screen....
Same answer as above.

"Full frame all the time would be a UI nightmare"
Because...? Do you ever view photo threads on pnet or ANY other forums that allows full photos to be displayed? I do..and I am able to..scroll...up...and....down.....

I must be missing the point. Sorry.

There's a gazillion photo threads on pnet, as an example, with full photos displayed in them (here is an example: Link (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Fr20&tag=)) and I can't see any problem with it neither from a UI or any other perspetive......

camera chipmunk
04-03-2006, 16:02
I prefer thumbnails.

Doug
04-04-2006, 14:07
I've encountered large photos embedded in a thread such that I have to scroll around to see the various parts of it. This is so unwieldy I will (if motivated) download the photo, bring it into my editing software and view it at reduced scale, just so that I can assimilate the entire composition without scrolling. Large in-thread graphics also widen the text in all messages, making it necessary to scroll back and forth just to read each comment! Not nice....

Photo.net limits uploaded pics to less than 512 pixels wide and under 100k filesize, if I recall, and this helps photo-laden threads open reasonably quickly and not take up too much screen real estate.

back alley
04-04-2006, 14:07
and lots of the guys at pnet ignore the rules and upload beyond the posted limits.

i noticed you included a link in one of your posts here rich...;)

joe

ch1
04-04-2006, 14:07
Let's keep in perspective that this is not a question of whether you are "with it" tech-wise.

Full frame pics are a PITA to thos of us who use laptops!

On my W/NW Wheels thread this evening I first missed part of Todd's post becaause I thought it was already done loading.

He loaded full pics and I responded to the partial load!

Since all of his pics were great my praise was easily transferrable!

But it would have been nice if I'd just seen a "thumbnail" posting first off w/o wondering if I'd seen all the pics!

Flyfisher Tom
04-06-2006, 07:27
thumbnails ... faster than waiting for the imbedded photos to all load

nwcanonman
04-07-2006, 10:35
Dial up is the only option for some folks. I don't think we should abandon them because clicking on a thumbnail is too troublesome for others.

A word of caution: everyone must keep in mind that for the dial up users, viewing full size images in threads will be a much more significant problem than it is for those who dislike having to click on thumbnails to view the images.

I don't think it would be fair to decide this by a simple majority (50% +1) since the outcome will have a much greater effect on some people than others.
.............................................
Frank,
Thanks, some of us would rather spend our hard-earned $ on film/gear than waste it on a faster connection speed. That and I'm just a cheap ******* :p

Socke
04-07-2006, 11:39
.............................................
Frank,
Thanks, some of us would rather spend our hard-earned $ on film/gear than waste it on a faster connection speed. That and I'm just a cheap ******* :p

Luckily this is not the case here. An unlimited 1000/1500 Kbit/s DSL line can be had for around 30 Euros a month.

Since you need a 20 Euro/month phone line to use a dial-up conection this leaves you with 10 Euro to spend on internet access.
So a modem user here has some 17 hours of slow internet access and spends the same I do for my 1000/1500 which is up some 10h a day.

OTOH, as I stated above, in some rural places a DSL line might not be available.

nwcanonman
04-07-2006, 20:41
Socke,
Here, in my part of the USA, the average DSL is close to $50usd a month. Then the home phone line is close to $30usd extra (with no long distance or taxes added).
But my little Netzero dial-up is only $9.95 monthly, so I'm staying very happy and cheap
Does that help explain why I also drive a 1980 Toyota pickup? It's paid for and keeps running. :D