Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wide Images
The Fountain Pen Network > Miscellaneous > Community Feedback
JDlugosz
On this message board, the presence of a wide image will force that post to become that wide. This means that you may have to make the window wider than comfortable reading for a column of prose, or worse yet scroll side-to-side to read it at all. Yet for ink reviews a "progressively" wide (as I write this in 2008) illustration is needed.

What should happen is that the paragraphs of text are normal width based on the window, and the wide illustrations grow horizontal scroll bars and (if javascript is enabled) a zoom button. I don't know what kind of configuration this IPBoard software does, but you might look into it, as well as check with the IPBoard authors for support.

There is a trivial change to the CSS that I think will be liked by many of the people here. Here is a user CSS file (applied using Stylish in Firefox):

CODE
@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);

@-moz-document domain("www.fountainpennetwork.com") {

IMG[src='http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/style_images/1/newpost.gif'] {
   width: 20px;
   height: 20px;
   }
IMG {
   max-width: 1200px;  /* change to suit, or use 98% to always fit to window */
   }
}


Basically, the max-width should be set to the widest you want the picture to be. If an image is wider, it will be resized to that automatically.

The first part is something else: the little orange specs that take you to the new posts on a thread are too small to click on, so I enlarged them 20 pixels square. This is another suggestion to the forum staff: make that spec the same size as the letter 'M' at the very least, not some microscopic spec (I think it is an 8-pixel GIF, which is about 1/16 inch on my laptop).

--John
Robert Hughes
Or you could just adjust your images to fit the page. We really don't need 2MB files here - they are the bandwidth hogs, not Chatter posts.
JDlugosz
QUOTE(Robert Hughes @ May 26 2008, 09:36 PM) [snapback]623035[/snapback]
Or you could just adjust your images to fit the page. We really don't need 2MB files here - they are the bandwidth hogs, not Chatter posts.


My ink review images are in the range of 115K. I don't save large files willy-nilly, but use ImageReady to interactively pick the compression factor to make them as small as possible without introducing significant "mosquito noise" or fringes around the text. This requires separate adjustment for each image in the set and is a manual step.

The file size is not the same issue as width in pixels I was talking about. And the 1700px images I've seen were hosted elsewhere anyway! I think you are getting this topic confused with the Chatter thing which I've not read up on yet.

--John
Gerry
There is a compression that is employed when large pictures are posted, but it doesn't work always, and as far as I know isn't related to the size of your window - ie it's based on a full screen display width.

Perhaps we'll take a look at this when we get a little time... whenever that is...

Regards,

Gerry
JDlugosz
Here is a page showing a demonstration and proof of concept.

Gerry
Will put that in the queue... wink.gif

Gerry
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.