Upvote
0
Jim Saunders said:700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.
Jim
IMG_0001 said:I like big thumbs...
I beg every other users for pardon as I often did reply to post with images without removing them. Most of the times I reply while leaving images, it is because editing a quote from my not so smart phone is a bit of a pain in the ... well, you know.
I found the same on the Cars cars cars (and some bikes) thread.Jim Saunders said:..... As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.......
CR Backup Admin said:Jim Saunders said:700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.
Jim
I tried setting multiple sizes, and by trial and error, I found that 700 pixels wide was the maximum width without the system adding a scroll bar at the bottom. That's where it sits now 700 X 700. I could make it taller, but did not to do too much at one time.
+1 and small thunbnailsNorthstar said:sagittariansrock said:I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?
+1
tolusina said:I found the same on the Cars cars cars (and some bikes) thread.Jim Saunders said:..... As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.......
I tried to back up one page to 15, got a white page. Tried clicking through from page one, got as far as page 10, can't see anything between 11 and 15.
Dylan777 said:CR Backup Admin said:Jim Saunders said:700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.
Jim
I tried setting multiple sizes, and by trial and error, I found that 700 pixels wide was the maximum width without the system adding a scroll bar at the bottom. That's where it sits now 700 X 700. I could make it taller, but did not to do too much at one time.
Current view is better than tiny prev. However, it still looks dull at 700x700. Can you increase to larger size?
CR Backup Admin said:Dylan777 said:CR Backup Admin said:Jim Saunders said:700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.
Jim
I tried setting multiple sizes, and by trial and error, I found that 700 pixels wide was the maximum width without the system adding a scroll bar at the bottom. That's where it sits now 700 X 700. I could make it taller, but did not to do too much at one time.
Current view is better than tiny prev. However, it still looks dull at 700x700. Can you increase to larger size?
700 X 700 is as large as the forum allows. after that, you have to scroll around to see it. Might as well click on the thumbnail as do that.
sagittariansrock said:I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?
sagittariansrock said:I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?
I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.Valvebounce said:...... loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind....
tolusina said:I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.
As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.
Best would be where posters learn how and implement a post/reply method that removes all from the quote that has no relevance to the reply. Being as we are all perfectly flawed humans with widely varied knowledge and experiences, this is not likely to happen.
Hmm, to eliminate visual clutter, let's all learn to post at f1.2, narrow focus and depth of field, clutter be banished to Bokeh.
edit...... visual clutter applies to text that is needlessly quoted, most especially when multi-quoted, visual clutter is not limited to images.
+2Click said:sagittariansrock said:I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate.
+1
...And I prefer large image 770 x 770
tolusina said:I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.Valvebounce said:...... loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind....
As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.
Best would be where posters learn how and implement a post/reply method that removes all from the quote that has no relevance to the reply. Being as we are all perfectly flawed humans with widely varied knowledge and experiences, this is not likely to happen.
Hmm, to eliminate visual clutter, let's all learn to post at f1.2, narrow focus and depth of field, clutter be banished to Bokeh.
edit...... visual clutter applies to text that is needlessly quoted, most especially when multi-quoted, visual clutter is not limited to images.