I'm experimenting with changing the current image attachments from thumbnails to full size images instead.
Is this useful or annoying?
I would keep thumbnails. It is not that hard to click on a picture, but it is much easier to scroll past small pictures.
If it acts the way I think it will, I find would it annoying because it takes a while for the large thread page images all to load, and then the posts hop around like a very badly designed CSS page loading a pile of ads until it’s all done and all the images have loaded. Impossible to try and start reading until all the jumping around is done.
I’ve noticed this behavior already on some threads where full-size images seem to appear without needing to click the thumbnail.
Yep, been looking myself now and it can get annoying with lots of large images. Better to have the poster chose to manually insert those large pics rather than force it on everyone.
Changed back.
Also, not all viewers have great bandwidth or equipment, so let the user choose to click on the thumbnail
BTW, I have upgraded the image/video embedded plugin, and now imgur images will be displayed embedded with just the imgur link
That did not seem to work.
Test: link
end link.
That did not seem to work.
Test: link end link.
Yes gallery links don't work, but the normal URL link when you post an image does:
"
https://imgur.com/gallery/Q6FvvTF" won't work, but "https : //imgur.com/HAhjaxu" will:
and the BBC code from IMGUR still doesn't work, seems to be a recent bug on their part.
Is this useful or annoying?
Quite annoying when a post has a few expanded images making the post 2 or more screens high, you can't see the before and after posts.
I think what would be useful is to be able to insert the thumbnail(s) directly under the relevant text, instead of all at the bottom.
Is this useful or annoying?
Quite annoying when a post has a few expanded images making the post 2 or more screens high, you can't see the before and after posts.
I think what would be useful is to be able to insert the thumbnail(s) directly under the relevant text, instead of all at the bottom.
You can set the image height so that it appears much like a thumbnail yet when clicked you can still see the full size image.
Syntax used: [ img height=60 ] image/thumbnail url [ /img ] (spaces added for visibility
)
Member mnementh over in the TEA thread uses this method to keep posts and quoted replies to a reasonable size and still retain visual context.
I would keep thumbnails. It is not that hard to click on a picture, but it is much easier to scroll past small pictures.
I'm with the majority here, and would prefer to keep the thumbnails. However, when I want to see the full-size image, I typically find the server's response to clicking the thumbnail quite slow. It takes a couple of seconds for the image to show up -- certainly longer than what I would expect based on internet bandwidth, and often long enough for me to wonder "Hey, did that click register at all?".
Do others observe that as well? Is there possibly some inefficiency in the SMF implementation which could be improved upon?
Yeah, I often see the delay too.
Protip: you can middle-click the thumbnail to get a new tab image-only view. I don't think that's documented anywhere, just left for you to discover.
Tim
You can set the image height so that it appears much like a thumbnail yet when clicked you can still see the full size image.
Syntax used: [ img height=60 ] image/thumbnail url [ /img ] (spaces added for visibility )
I'll experiment, but I think bandwidth wise that might be worse, because all browsers will be downloading the full size at least once and resizing it, and the other thumbnail will still be at the bottom of the post.
You can set the image height so that it appears much like a thumbnail yet when clicked you can still see the full size image.
Syntax used: [ img height=60 ] image/thumbnail url [ /img ] (spaces added for visibility )
I'll experiment, but I think bandwidth wise that might be worse, because all browsers will be downloading the full size at least once and resizing it, and the other thumbnail will still be at the bottom of the post.
Yes of course and some that have never had piss poor internet will never understand that compressing an image assists those that have slow internet or small data caps.
It's up to each of us how best we use image sizing on the forum so that we can maintain a reasonably good viewing experience.
Not long ago I had at best a 1.7 MB/s connection and if posted images took more than a few secs to load I bailed to another thread to look for more pleasant viewing, now I've got plenty of speed and no data cap I don't give a shit what I click on but I never forget those days when the 'net was a PITA and adjust all imagery I upload to Daves server for a quick viewing experience.
BTW, I have upgraded the image/video embedded plugin, and now imgur images will be displayed embedded with just the imgur link
Seems in doing this you may have broken the Youtube auto linker or not enabled it on the new mod if it has it
Either that or the what seems newer Youtube link generated with the "youtu.be" is not supported?
Keep it at thumbnails too, people if they want to can put them inline but that can be a PITA for those of us still on Slowband
Youtube can still be done this way
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvjXoZizHRA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvjXoZizHRA[/url]
[url=https://youtu.be/nvjXoZizHRA]https://youtu.be/nvjXoZizHRA[/url]Which works as this
Also, not all viewers have great bandwidth or equipment, so let the user choose to click on the thumbnail
I agree, not generally a problem for me on this main computer but it is a big deal when viewing from the tablet or television, both of which aren't really suited now due to their crappy and limited browsers but it's all I have at the moment until I can update..
I also noticed in a few recent threads quite a few larger images posted and wondered if this was going to stay or whether it was just a result of these recent modifications, the maximum size for each image previously was 1000kB and it is now set for up to 5000kB.
People are already posting 980 kB images when 100 kB would be enough.
)