image auto-sizing on the forums?

[Daniel Buck]

I have noticed that just about everyone who posts images posts them in the 700-800px wide range. Would it hurt that much to increase the maximum width from the current 700 to a more reasonable 800 that would cover most folks images?

I think that would make viewing the images easier, just a suggestion :)

[Brian Lalor]

It'd be nice if there were some sort of in-window viewing (Lightbox?) that would allow me to stay on the page. A photography forum shouldn't make looking at images so difficult. :) I'd actually vote to not resize them at all...

[Ryan McGuinness]

I agree, 800mp wide is what I re-size 90% of my images to.

[Morgan J Segal]

I prefer 700p

[Todd Corzett]

For the most part I do 648x448 (600x400 for the image and a 48 frame). Every once and a while I'll do a larger 948x648 image, but that's rare.

-Todd...

[Drewe Zanki]

I usually do 800x600 - but then I am always using very hi-res screens and that looks small on mine :D

I will make them smaller from now on...

[John Thawley]

I prefer 700p

Exactly.

The site was built to accommodate 800x600 resolution. I know that's low for high-end users, but it is still the defacto standard for web site development. Download a new browser... open it... you'll see it opens to 800 wide. Which means, the "safe area" is about 750.

The size restriction is to keep images from "busting" the table structure of the site.

I don't anticipate this changing anytime soon. So... with all due respect, I'd suggest if you're posting here, size your images to 720 ... you'll be fine.

JT

[John Thawley]

It'd be nice if there were some sort of in-window viewing (Lightbox?) that would allow me to stay on the page. A photography forum shouldn't make looking at images so difficult. :) I'd actually vote to not resize them at all...

I'm not sure what is SO DIFFICULT. Perhaps you consider upgrading your account and adding our Gallery feature? It's very easy to use.

And, for what it's worth, we won't be voting. ;)

[Daniel Buck]

I don't anticipate this changing anytime soon. So... with all due respect, I'd suggest if you're posting here, size your images to 720 ... you'll be fine.
720 will still be shrunk, 700 is the limit I believe.

[Justin Haugen]

Exactly.

The site was built to accommodate 800x600 resolution. I know that's low for high-end users, but it is still the defacto standard for web site development. Download a new browser... open it... you'll see it opens to 800 wide. Which means, the "safe area" is about 750.

The size restriction is to keep images from "busting" the table structure of the site.

I don't anticipate this changing anytime soon. So... with all due respect, I'd suggest if you're posting here, size your images to 720 ... you'll be fine.

JT

I've been wondering for a long time how long this will remain the standard @ 800x600 resolution being the safe area, considering the rise in wide screen and larger LCDs being purchased by consumers. I recall my average user was at 1024x768 or larger in screen resolution. My old stat tracker that tracked screen res rarely showed an 800x600 resolution for any of my visitors. But my demographic of visitors probably consists of people who have no problem seeing the screen without large fonts and huge icons.

Imho, I think it really comes down to your target audience. On a site like this for example, I think it's pretty much a given that everyone on here is running a 1024x768 resolution or higher, I'm very curious if anyone is running less than this. In fact I would say no one using this site is running 800x600. If they are, I'm blown away at what it'd be like trying to post process at such a small resolution.. I set my own site up to be friendly to 1024x768 users, and decided I probably don't have too much attachment to my visitors trying to view my content at a smaller resolution.

I think at this point in the development of monitor technology and other factors, it's certainly arguable that 800x600 is such a defacto standard anymore, despite what web professionals and the web developing industry say about it. Oh well, my opinion on the matter didn't stop a former boss from making design web layouts optimized for 800x600, but he had lots of business coming from retirement communities so we had to be on the safe side.

Regardless I tend to size my images at 700px wide anyway so this doesn't really affect me anyway,

[Brian Lalor]

I'm not sure what is SO DIFFICULT. Perhaps you consider upgrading your account and adding our Gallery feature? It's very easy to use.

And, for what it's worth, we won't be voting. ;)
Not trying to start a fight here, John! :D I just meant that, from a usability perspective, it'd be nice if I didn't have to leave the thread page to see an embedded image in all its glory. Since the images aren't actually being resized (just squished with <img /> tag width and height attributes) the bigger pictures end up having "jaggies". I can absolutely click on the image to see it in all its glory, but that opens in a new window which I then have to close.

MINI2.com, another vBulletin forum, has something that pops up the image full-size within the page if its dimensions are larger than a set size. I believe it uses some variant of Lightbox (http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/), but may just use that same idea. I suppose the number of clicks is no fewer, but it's a nicer user experience, in my opinion.

I'm not sure what upgrading would get me; does the Gallery impact the way I view other people's images? I'm pretty handy with Flickr when it comes to posting to vB-type forms. ;)

[John Thawley]

Not trying to start a fight here, John! :D I just meant that, from a usability perspective, it'd be nice if I didn't have to leave the thread page to see an embedded image in all its glory. Since the images aren't actually being resized (just squished with <img /> tag width and height attributes) the bigger pictures end up having "jaggies". I can absolutely click on the image to see it in all its glory, but that opens in a new window which I then have to close.

MINI2.com, another vBulletin forum, has something that pops up the image full-size within the page if its dimensions are larger than a set size. I believe it uses some variant of Lightbox (http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/), but may just use that same idea. I suppose the number of clicks is no fewer, but it's a nicer user experience, in my opinion.

I'm not sure what upgrading would get me; does the Gallery impact the way I view other people's images? I'm pretty handy with Flickr when it comes to posting to vB-type forms. ;)


Not fighting.. just having a hard time understanding the issue here. I post images all over the web and every site seems to dictate a similar size. As Morgan stated 700pix is fairly standard... and a reasonable size.

Ultimately, this is a discussion forum... yes we look at and discuss images, but we're not flickr or a sharing gallery. Perhaps we have a difference in philosophy regarding what APN is for.

That said, though, we do offer the Gallery feature for those that don't have a server or who don't want a flickr account... or simply want to support APN and help keep the site around.

I will take a look at what mini2.com is using.

Thanks,

John

[Jim Sykes]

I dont know what the software is, but if you look at www.audizine.com they have software that will resize the image within the thread, but if you click the image it makes it full size within the thread, not opening a new window. I think that is what Brian is talking about.

Its very convenient. You want to see full size, you click it, it opens, you look at it, you click it again and it resizes it back down.

Check out this thread to see what I mean.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119578

Not to mention a seriously bad ass car. ;)

[Brian Lalor]

Jim, I've seen that same resizing magic on MINI2, as well. Now that I think about it, they use the Lightbox-type viewing for attachments, not linked images.