|
Post by smokeeye123 on Jul 25, 2010 19:04:17 GMT -5
Blah. A signature exceeding those dimensions looks obnoxious, regardless of whether you're on a large widescreen monitor/connecting over a highspeed connection anyway. And the limit on avatar dimensions is automatically and irrevocably enforced by Proboards itself as it is, so using a large image for an avatar is pointless. It's not just for that...The rules state we should link everything and not post pictures. Why include the option if we aren't able to/extremely limited in using it.
|
|
|
Post by Pitch on Jul 25, 2010 19:14:04 GMT -5
I myself have nothing to do with the making of the rules/etc, so I can't give you any official answer, but posting lots of large images is just in bad taste anyway. It looks awful; especially when it stretches the page horizontally. (I've had this happen even on my widescreen display >.<)
Also, the rule says don't post large images. Small images are fine for posting. And for larger images, thumbnails w/links are 100% OK; that looks much neater and is much more considerate anyway.
It's not really an "extreme" limitation at all. o__o
|
|
|
Post by in·clover on Jul 25, 2010 19:25:52 GMT -5
...posting lots of large images is just in bad taste anyway. It looks awful; especially when it stretches the page horizontally. (I've had this happen even on my widescreen display >.<)Oh my. I am completely guilty of this. Though I didn't realize this until I revisited using a different monitor later. No infraction notice, but I totally deserved one. Back on topic, huge sigs do look bad. The focus should be on your post, not your decor. I've seen forums that don't enforce this rule at all, and some members' sigs are three times the size of the post itself ( for comparison, the post was rather long-winded, too). Not aesthetically pleasing at all. You'd like to think people use common sense in these situations, but they don't, and a line needs to be clearly drawn somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by blayze16 on Jul 25, 2010 23:02:17 GMT -5
Isn't there a setting in which an image is simply cropped when it reaches the boundaries (on posts and sig areas)? Or at least a width value in an IMG tag? (eg. {IMG Width="100"}{/img})
|
|
|
Post by Chiz on Jul 26, 2010 3:15:05 GMT -5
Those sorts of tag attributes aren't available right now for anything, although there is a possibility of them being supported in Proboards v5; when this will be released, I don't know. The image(s) need to manually be resized in an image editor, then rehosted on your favourite image host and then linked to. The upside, however, is that the resize is smoother than if the browser did it, wherein all cases I've seen are horribly pixelated from the basic quick-and-dirty scale function they use. This can be seen with using too-large avatars, as the board will forcibly 'resize' them down to 100x100 for display, often resulting in a jagged mess (and unnecessarily large filesize to boot). For images hosted on Imageshack or Photobucket, they usually supply a thumbnail; the old FAQ covered how to make a linked thumbnail to the full image. If you don't use one of those 2, I'm sure there are means to either use an auto-generated thumbnail, or create your own as a separate image and use that. That way you end up with a small gallery. Combined with tables, the display can be both highly functional and look classy.
|
|
MayImilae
Zakobon
Badgeless, and proud of it!
Posts: 145
|
Post by MayImilae on Jul 26, 2010 4:26:02 GMT -5
Well, those of us with dialup are used to being abused. We don't whine about people that post huge images cause well, the internet isn't for people like us anymore. Heck, most sites time out before they even finish loading! You just learn to live with it, or use Opera Turbo, which makes everything look horrific. I appreciate the thought though. Regardless, this issue is about more then just dialup. Especially with signatures and avatars, it looks atrocious and distracting to have HUUUUGE images on a forum. So between dialup leftovers and overly annoying image protection, it's a sensible rule. And MMLS doesn't go nazi about it, hardly ever enforcing it, so everything is reasonable all around, if you ask me. Oh, we're around.
|
|
|
Post by smokeeye123 on Jul 26, 2010 13:43:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pitch on Jul 26, 2010 14:37:58 GMT -5
Eh... some of them look a little big. (EDIT: Right, once again, my opinion only — this is in no way an official judgment)
I don't know the exact rules for dimensions of images in posts — in fact I half suspect there aren't any exact rules for those. But I would guess that at the very least, any images contained in a post shouldn't exceed the width limit on signatures for exactly the same reasons we have a width limit on signatures. I'd imagine you could get away with scaling the images to 500 pixels in width if there weren't very many of them.
But I hardly think a clickable thumbnail gallery would look bad in any case — especially in that topic there.. You could organize all the images as thumbnails on the first post; it would be easy to navigate and it would be more considerate.
|
|
|
Post by blayze16 on Jul 26, 2010 21:38:29 GMT -5
Putting a notice in the title (like non-56k friendly) might also be useful. If he/she just wants to see the posts, they can untick the "Show images" option, or right-click -> View image the particular image they might want to see without waiting for the other pics to load.
|
|
Qwertman
Habarool
Work work work...
Posts: 736
|
Post by Qwertman on Jul 26, 2010 21:43:33 GMT -5
It kind of has always bugged me that the avatar limit is smaller than the provided ones. If the admins want to make the site more dialup friendly, there's always PNGshrink. It takes png files and makes them a lot smaller without reducing quality.
|
|
|
Post by Dashe on Jul 30, 2010 10:09:38 GMT -5
smokeeye123 - With images, thumbnails are more aesthetically pleasing, and if you learn to use tables and thumbnails together, then your posts will look a hundred times nicer than anyone else's on 90% of forums on the Internet. A lot of those rules are more of the sort that support forum cleanliness. And hey, you never know, if enough people learn the value of a clean forum, there might actually be an overall Net-wide Message Board Moron reduction, even if it isn't by much. Your LBP images would definitely look more professional if they were set up as linked thumbnails.
Also of note: If you want to generate interest for a fan project, if you use a very professional means of displaying your production stills, you're more likely to generate a lot of interest.
Green - There is an exact kiB limit on sigs and avatars that nobody other than Chiz ever really bothered to screen members for. Usually when there's a violation it's because the sig or avatar contains some kind of unusually huge animated image where the case is pretty obvious.
qwertman - I've always thought of the increased MMLS-brand avatar size as a forum spirit sort of thing. It isn't a strict enforcement where you have to use MMLS avatars, but if you do elect to use them, there should be some kind of bonus attached as thanks for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Pitch on Jul 30, 2010 12:35:17 GMT -5
@miss Dashe That I was aware of, but what I'm not certain about is whether there's any exact limit for posting images — unless you mean the limit is the same. I'm pretty sure that's it, too. IIRC this is what fAB told me when I tried to provide hax to increase the default forum avatar size. Something about wanting more people to use Legends-themed avatars, seeing as this is a Legends-themed forum. @qwert If you're running a browser that has a CSS-editing plugin like Firefox's "Stylish," here's a quick and dirty hack you can apply to scale avatars bigger than 100×100 down to 150×150 instead. (they'll only appear that way to you, though)img [alt="[avatar]"]{ height: auto !important; width: auto !important; max-height: 150px; max-width: 150px; }
|
|