Thread: The way this site handles pictures could really be improved.

Geez, just read all the posts in this thread, now I got a head ache... . I am more that happy, almost ecstatic if my post and pictures, thumb prints or what ever they are called, appears on the screen. I reduce the "size" or whatever, somehow, but it seems to work. Please don't make it any more confusing for me at this stage of my career.... my head hurts. .
Jim

A downside to the large images just posted, as well as the link from Lignum, is that the images are available for viewing and downloading WITHOUT being logged in, or even registered. About 1 1/2 years ago, downloading traffic became so heavy, that embedded images were restricted to logged-in users, as also used on the AAW forum and SawMill Creek. This made it awkward to provide links to WWF from email and elsewhere, but 'twas all for the better, IMHO.

And, here's another reason for restricting image access: https://www.woodworkforums.com/f69/shocked-81532 (#14)

Cheers,
Joe

Originally Posted by Woodwould

I'm afraid I'm a proponent of the large image within text in my posts. It stems from book writing and IMO, affords the reader enhanced understanding of what's being described.

Yep - that's what I think too. I write and review technical reports and scientific papers for scientific/technical journals and the web. I've written stuff for the web since 1994 covering topics from beer to nuclear physics and analysed web user click responses, time on page data, thumbnail v text clicks etc for my sites. Full size embedded images within web pages are generally more effective at engaging and retaining readers in expository technical writing for the web. Some of the posts within WWF are well within that scope, others are not and do not need embedded images - especially given some of the images are not worth the pixels they occupy. Like I posted earlier, thumbnails are fine for photo albums. menus and home pages. If you are sitting and waiting for pages to download you are not using the web as efficiently as you could be.

OK the original reason I spat chips about the issue of reducing images to both dimensions and file sizes is because:

a) I post lots of articles on lots of other sites; and one of my favourites is Instructables.

That has the feature or programming of being able to upload ones images as is; and then

Display the image in a reduced, but fairly reasonably sized image - on the web page; and

With two more clicks, one can then jump from the "smaller" image to a medium image and then to the full sized image.

I reckon that system works really great.

In this enlightened age of vested self centeredness, and the tendancy to perceive ones own range of expereinces and facilites as applicable to everyone else... like yelling at the starving people on TV in Africa - in the middle of the desert "We if you want a drink ha ha ha - why don't you just turn on the tap - ha ha ha"...

Where the frustration comes into this for me, is that while I can reduce images down in dimensional size and file size - the software I have for doing these process's - and I have a fair range at my disposal; well the best and easiest software works fine for general reduction - fast and easy and they do batches etc., to really begin to push the limits down to very small sizes - especially the file size; well it kind of gets to be frustrating guessing the amounts of reduction for different images and their image content.

So I get to be thinking...... this is just too much effort, and after using the really "up to date" websites, I feel as if I realy don't want to be doing these kinds of reductions and image modifications - specifically for this site.

And while the opinions run thick and fast along the lines of "My reality is everyone elses too" - the lack of objective imformation is where the matters raised in this fashion become invalid.

For instance, even pox $120 digital cameras take really good images at 6 or 7 Megapixel images. $600 + cameras are shooting at 14+ Megapixels. And they just keep right on getting SOOOO much better from there.

So reducing really good images - while SOME reduction is propbably a good thing; the excessively small reduction is becoming excessive - like upgrading to a 486 computer.

Going back to the "Instructables site" and the tiers of image size available for clicking through too;

While SOME people may be on dial up, I think there is an awful lot who are on broadband - and by using the "Instructables" website of handling images, that would cater for everyone; but having moved off dial up a few years back, dial up has as much appeal as upgrading to a 486; and backing all my stuff up on floppies.

So I put that forward that the broadband users ARE in the overwhelming majority and dial up users are in the kind of extreme minority - and by using the "Instructables" webistes method of handling images, as slow as dial up actually is - this format still caters for everyone.

I also hear screeches of "server space etc.," while not being utterly ofay with every detail of every server setup; for those who are doing the Luddite proclaimations - in case you had not noticed 1 Terrabyte SATA drives with 32M of cache can be had for around $130...

I also see a few people proclaiming how wonderful this site is, they are doing it all for us, for free...

Well not it's not. It's the posters who contribute to generating the through traffic - that becomes the revenue stream for the advertisers and the site owners....

10,000 people come through, 1000 might become regulars; 500 might become regular purchases of these advertisers and owners products.....

I don't know the exact stats; but this site is a business; it's not a touchy feely free for all paid for by the owners, out of their own pockets; with no return on their investment.


Setting aside the issues of "My perspective is the how the world operates" and the countering of these misunderstandings with fact - to get back to my original point - being the very reason for my starting this thread;.

From some of the more insightful and market savvy posters along with my own frustrations at taking backward looking steps to cater for this sites image handling; I feel that there are many good personal and buisness reasons for improving and upgrading the sites image handling capabilites.

Originally Posted by HammaHed

"My reality is everyone elses too"

No offence Hamma, but I'm not sure that it is.

Originally Posted by HammaHed

Going back to the "Instructables site"

That's a good idea since you rave about it so much. Just roll that big stone back over the cave entrance on your way out.

Originally Posted by HammaHed

for those who are doing the Luddite proclaimations

There's no Luddites here buddy, just us darkside chippies banging away with our stone tools.


I'm happy with this joint the way it is. I can post big pics with a free off-site hosting account, which is the way I prefer to do it anyway.

To put that in plain English for you;
Sorry, if perchance you've found my chosen words to be contrary to what you may have hoped for under more favourable conditions, but I find after much analysis, that your manner and attitude are quite condescending.
That's just my opinion of course.

I think you are talking out your sphincter HH.

Originally Posted by HammaHed

.......................
I also see a few people proclaiming how wonderful this site is, they are doing it all for us, for free...

Well not it's not. It's the posters who contribute to generating the through traffic - that becomes the revenue stream for the advertisers and the site owners....

10,000 people come through, 1000 might become regulars; 500 might become regular purchases of these advertisers and owners products.....

I don't know the exact stats; but this site is a business; it's not a touchy feely free for all paid for by the owners, out of their own pockets; with no return on their investment.
...................

HH, I'm pretty sure Neil is only covering costs by having advertising on the fourms. If you're so concerned about the way pictures are handled here why don't you offer ................. forget it, just p!55 off.

In this enlightened age of vested self centeredness, and the tendancy to perceive ones own range of expereinces and facilites as applicable to everyone else... like yelling at the starving people on TV in Africa - in the middle of the desert "We if you want a drink ha ha ha - why don't you just turn on the tap - ha ha ha"...

??

I think you need to reduce the dosage a bit, nurse...

HH - I (and most other respondents to this thread it seems) didn't like your first post and your subsequent ones haven't improved - you're no loss to this forum.

On yer bike mate, I'm sure your "Instructables" have a home for you

Ian

I seem to recall a joke that ended with........"you're not here for the hunting are you" think it kind of applies here.

Mike......looking forward to the next episode

Originally Posted by HammaHed

.

What a load of crap that post was - i started by highlighting the bits i disagreed (wanted to mention in my reply) on then noticed most of what you posted was highlighted so thought WHAT THE.........

Sometimes i read posts on this great forum
(that is there for all, yep that includes those that are not technical computer yuppies, and costs nothing to use)
that just make me shake my head and wonder why the hell you are on this sight/forum when it so backward and obviously doesnt cater to you needs.

With 16 posts/contributions to date it astounds me that you are still around, what with your extensive knowledge of the business world and how it operates i think you should start your own forum up - that way you can have big pics and all the other things you cant have here.

Oh by the way how much has this forum cost you to use to date - yep thought so absolutely nothing, yet all of what you have contributed was checked by someone to ensure it was relevant, not abusive, and didnt leave the forum owner in a litigious situation.

Maybe you should use you extensive computer knowledge to track down the basics of commercial reality and that may explain why you dont pay but the owner has his costs covered by advertising.

Just my opinion of course but i think its right.

Cheers

I have taken a lot of pix of various projects I have done but I haven't posted them for the reason that I don't have the time to sit and type it out (8 wpm) online and then place the pix

Derek's posts are very easy to read but I don't have the knowledge to do it the way he does

Is there a way to compile the post ,with pix, in word or something similar and then post it?

I know this is probably not the place to ask this question but I have been following this thread with interest and have picked up some ideas on how the photo placement works

Clearly experiences and preferences will vary. At work we generate and publish a 10,000+ page detailed procedure manual every three months. Initially we had in-line photographs and tables but after constant feedback from our 15000 occasional users, 7000 daily users, studies by external web and document design companies and reviews of usability by our information technology group we have modified the approach.

We now publish mostly text. Photos or graphics are only included in-line where they are essential to understanding the process. Any other supporting or reference material is hyperlinked. If a user wants to see the material they click on the link and a new window opens.

By doing this we achieve the minimum time to load the page and the least bandwidth to get the job done. For the user who wants a bit more information they can access the info as required. For those who do not wish to see the additional info they don't have to. For those who revisit the page they do not have to reload non-essential information they have already seen.

For our situation in these forums I see thumbnails as a practical compromise, especially when there is no consensus of opinion and users have different methods of reading the forums. Ultimately the decision is Neil's of course, and I suspect that while he has members with opinions on both sides of the fence he will try to remain in the middle.

Shut up Groggy, what are you talking about?