|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Feb 19, 2005 12:26:06 GMT -8
Seriously, we need one. I don't want to point fingers, but there's a group of posters who simply insist on including ludicrously wide pics in their posts, which, for those of us with lower screen resolutions, completely breaks up the board structure, forcing us to scroll continuously to read anything. (I've PMd a few of you about this, but then decided it was easier to simply post it here.)
I post as many pics as the next guy, if not more, but even I know to keep them at no more than a 500 pixel width. If you want to post a huge picture, and are either unable or unwilling to resize or crop it, then please, for the love of all that is good and decent, just link to it!
Remember, margin-rape makes Baby Jesus cry.
|
|
|
Post by pmrsim on Feb 20, 2005 4:38:49 GMT -8
Generally speaking, I would prefer links to pictures rather than actual pictures. Especially with the chick threads. I'm not sure I want to be exposed to Sean Connery in leather underwear *that* easily. The exception -for posting pics- being when it really is filmmusic related. As free and open as this forum is, it is still a filmmusic messageboard. As for the size of pics if you are going to post one, yes, if you have any means of making 'm a tad smaller, that'd be wonderful. Though, most of the time they're linked from other sites, so there's not much you can do (except download, adjust and upload to a private space--but not many will have that opportunity.... hence I prefer links, especially with large, non-filmmusic related pics). That's just my personal opinion. Don't know yet how Jon feels about it. Of course, as an administrator I have the option to remove pics or to replace 'm with the original link, but I'm not going to be that childish. (Though, maybe I will eventually .. after the chick thread has died out.) And Jens: I'm surprised you - a graphic designer? - have such a small screen resolution. pete.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Feb 20, 2005 11:47:35 GMT -8
Generally speaking, I would prefer links to pictures rather than actual pictures. Especially with the chick threads. I'm not sure I want to be exposed to Sean Connery in leather underwear *that* easily. In this case I'll have to disagree. I think the ability to post pictures within posts is one of the chief reasons this board rules. Often linking just isn't as, er, funny and spontaneous as simply displaying a pic in the post. I mean, seriously, would the Connery pic have had even a fraction of the effect it did if it was merely linked? I think not. However, I do wish there was an option to display the board sans pictures, for those of us with dial up. Of course, as an administrator I have the option to remove pics or to replace 'm with the original link, but I'm not going to be that childish. I want that power. I don't think you admins quite do enough 'round here. And Jens: I'm surprised you - a graphic designer? - have such a small screen resolution. The high-end computer I use for work isn't even hooked up to the net (fear of viruses, etc.). I do most of my browsing from the free computer room in my apartment complex.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Feb 20, 2005 11:49:04 GMT -8
And Jens: I'm surprised you - a graphic designer? - have such a small screen resolution. I believe that's to see what works and what doesn't to broaden appeal and take in consideration other people's browsers. Kind of like why Clemmensen condemns the use of heavy Flash on websites. No? Edit:Well, Jens beat me to it and now I look stupid (in two accounts). However, I agree with the picks. How can I pass this one as a link?
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Feb 20, 2005 11:52:10 GMT -8
I believe that's to see what works and what doesn't to broaden appeal and take in consideration other people's browsers. Kind of like why Clemmensen condemns the use of heavy Flash on websites. You're absolutely right, Hook. I know it's hard to believe, but a vast group of Internet users are still stuck with 800x600. Edit: And no, you don't look stupid. Professional web-pages must indeed be tested across browsers and resolution settings.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Mar 28, 2005 21:27:27 GMT -8
Though, most of the time they're linked from other sites, so there's not much you can do, except download, adjust and upload to a private space--but not many will have that opportunity. Sigh....if only there were places that host pictures for free. I should start one myself and call it www.picturehosting.com or www.freepicturehosting.com. That would be awesome.
|
|
Ami
Intern
Wife Extraordinaire
Posts: 38
|
Post by Ami on May 6, 2005 7:17:57 GMT -8
I'm not sure I want to be exposed to Sean Connery in leather underwear *that* easily. *perk* Well at least to Sean Connery.... So Jon. A'hem... Goes back to lurking
|
|