Lines too long

Please do not make the photos here as small as possible. We use some of these Forum threads in the Journal as members know and we already have a problem with the photo quality of some threads. The 600 pixal limit is a good one, but please do not make pictures too small so that they are unusable in the Journal.

Thanks!

Lew

I agree with Lew. Bigger pictures are better, but they can be better placed. A recent thread had three good-sized pictures side to side, causing one to have to scroll way over to view each one, and also encouranging text in replies to be in too long lines. Those pictures would have been better placed vertically, on top of each other.

John,

I’m far from any computer expert, but like Rogereh said, your browser should automatically kick text and multiple pictures to a suitable layout for your screen size. If a single picture is too wide for your screen, then you would have to scroll over to see it all and the text will fill the space the picture demands. Because of this, 600 wide for any single picture should be good for all set ups.

Might well be there is a setting that needs adjustment on your system, though I would be the last one to know what that would be…

Dave

Having worked in both web and printed media formats I can readily verify that web photos at their best are mediocre for printed material. PC monitors display at 96 DPI (MACs at 72 DPI). 200 DPI is probably a minimum for printed material with 600 DPI being much better for printed material.

Putting up a 200 DPI photo to a website is self-destructive as it will still be displayed at 96 DPI but VERY LARGE and slow to load. 96 DPI (large or small sized) makes for a poor photo in a printed article. The web and print media are two different animals. Web photos should be constrained to about 100 DPI for proper performance on a web page. For a long time 72 DPI was the WEB norm because MACs were considered the publishing field’s standard operating computers.

Every year I have to remind my wife that she can’t look on the Internet for good graphics for her Christmas cards. She has trouble visualizing that a picture on a website looks to be big but it may actually only be an inch or two square in size. So if she blows it up to 5 or 6 inches she will have a pretty bad picture for her cards. It’s like taking a 17 caliber to hunt elephants. The hole just won’t be big enough to do what you want done.

John
If we could get the forum members to “preview” their posts before “submitting” them they would readily see that their photos are too wide.

”""""
would give a wide photo.

"color=#0000FF[/color]”color=#0000FF[/color]”"
would allow a horizontal presentation and should allow photos to flow like the text would inside a text box. So a big screen may show all three side by side. A mid-size screen may show two side by side with one below and a small screen would have them in three rows. All, of course, depending on the sizes of the photos. A series of three small photos could appear side by side on all screens and three large photos may appear beneath one another on all screens.

” [color=#0000FF]ENTER[/color]
"" [color=#0000FF]ENTER[/color]
"" [color=#0000FF]ENTER[/color]
would place them all in a vertical position, one beneath the other. This is the method that I prefer to use even for small images.

I just went back and checked on a number of threads. Gyrojet and I posted images about 800 pixals wide on
http://www.iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9937&start=0
and I didn’t see any distortion on the text, and the images there would come out fine when used in the print Journal.

I also checked posts by
Fede
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/7-65-x-54-mm-mauser-extended-case-shot-by-fm-flb/8950/1
and
schneider
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/spanish-20-x-110rb/8720/1
and there was no distortion in text and these also are good on print, and run over 700 pixals to almost 800 pixals.

Would those of you having the test wrap problem check these threads and see if you get text distortion. If no than 800 pixals seems to be a good limit to satisfy both the web and print requirements.

Cheers,

Lew

Lew
They are not complaining about text “distortion”. The complaint is that large images require some of your users to have to scroll back and forth to read the topics because the large images are controlling the size of the text boxes in the threads. Just one over-sized photo anywhere within a thread will set the minimum width of the text boxes larger than what is normal for them to display the forum threads.

People just hate to scroll back and forth but for some reason they don’t mind scrolling up and down. I personally use two 23" monitors side-by-side and have no problem with any posts here or anywhere but the new trend is to use the newer netbooks and ultra-light laptops with 10" to 12" screens. Some may even connect with their cell phones. these are your users that may be having trouble (and not only on the IAA website).

Your webmaster should have multiple platforms and monitors to test your site. He/she should be able to give you some good advice on image sizes. Some sites will automatically down-grade all images to a maximum usable size. In my experience this will be about 600 DPI (sometimes more, sometimes less).

When you scroll down, you can still read many of the lines of print to reinforce what you have just read and make sense of a paragraph. Scrolling from side to side where a full half of a sentence is momentarily out of your view, you tend to forget what was in it. It is not the end of the world, but it is a distraction, I would think to most readers, especially if they are fast readers.

That situation makes it that much harder to make a cogent answer, especially if you want to mention things said in the text you are replying to.

Regarding computers. there are those of us who cannot afford two and three different computers. The one I am working on now is ten years old and will be the last computer we buy in our life. It is our third one ever. Quite honestly, I won’t be sorry the day it gives up the ghost B.E.R.

Actually, I am sorry that I brought this whole subject up! It seems to be causing some people much work and some angst far beyond its annoynace-factor for me.

Another good practice for those who are able is have the image link to a larger version of itself when you click it.

I use Google’s free Picasa Web service at: http://picasaweb.google.com and it automatically gives me multiple size versions of the picture. If I have a large picture I use the 800px version on the site and have it link to a bigger one.

See an example here: http://iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9943

John
I’ve spent a large percentage of my life in the computer business, much of it in web and publishing design work so the equipment I use is not the norm nor would I expect most people to have anything close to what I use,

Your last reply is exactly what I have been trying to convince others of. That many, many different computers are being used on a daily basis to view the forums and is the main reason that controlling their photo sizes is so important. It’s the older, and now the newest laptop computers, that will have smaller screens. Requesting large photos because they may (or may not) be used in the Journal actually hurts more forum users than helps. A simple cruise around any of the professional web sites will immediately show you that the photos on the IAA forums are way bigger than what others use and/or allow to be posted on their sites. Take a peek at Microsoft’s website which is probably one of the biggest and most technical site on the web. You will be hard pressed to find an image that appears to be more than an inch or two wide and high on your screen.

The reason s you are getting large photos posted is pretty simple:

  1. The cameras available now have a much higher pixel rate than ever. The average person using them do not know how to (or know they should) crop or re-size their photos before posting them.

  2. Older folks think that the bigger images are easier to see and better to demonstrate what they want to show to others.

Okay, that’s it from me. I’m pretty sure that there will not be any difference made by my speeches. Like computers, there are millions of individuals in the World and most of them will have their own opinions of what is the right way to post pictures on the web. I’ve only tried to share what I’ve learned over the years designing web sites.

PS: John, I’m fairly certain that your cartridge collection far exceeds mine and it’s for certain that you are way more knowledgeable about them than me. We all have our little niches in life.

I’ve made phone calls and exchanged emails and PMs with a number of people.

First, Ron Merchant covers this specific issue in his Sitcky at the top of this Forum on posting images (https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/posting-images-on-the-forum/8461/1). His recommendation is that nothing over 1000 pixels (yes I have learned to spell that word), should be posted on the Forum. If images are under 500-600 pixels have the quality begins to fall off when used in the Journal depending on what the subject is. A large subject like a cartridge board is unusuable at 600 but a cartridge or headstamp is great.

I have looked at the image size of a lot of the images in posts and they vary from about 200 pixels to about 1000. I wasn’t able to find one over 1000.

Talking to people who have the problem on their browser, the problem almost always occurs when a post has a number of photos on the same line next to each other, instead of above each other and seperated by line breaks (). The Forum sets the thread width to the total width of all the photos on the same line and this creates the problem that John Moss mentioned in the first post.

PLEASE PUT TWO LINE BREAKS () BETWEEN THE IMAGES YOU POST!!!

If you do this and also keep your images to 1000 pixels or less I think the problem will pretty much go away for most Forum members.

If you use Photobucket (and probably some other photo storage sites) then your pictures are automatically sized. Photobucket sizes images to 800 pixels which appears to work well on the forum.

Cheers,

Lew

One last time, Then I give up…
I’ve heard that a picture is worth a thousand words so here we go:

A lot of laptops run at a native screen size of 1024x768. In a nut shell that means the MOST that your screen/monitor will display is 1064 pixels wide if you are running your Internet browser at full-screen. You-all don’t seem to realize that the forum window has material to both the left and right sides of the text boxes. Most of that is to the left for about 200 pixels. Simple math will tell you that there will be less than 800 pixels left to display the text box. Running to 1000 pixels will require ALL of those running at a screen resolution of 1024x768 to have to scroll right to see an image of 1000 pixels. Below is a screen capture of the IAA forum thread at 1024 pixels overlaid with a measuring ruler used to measure screen pixels. I’ve set the rulers length to 1000 pixels and against the left-most side of the text box. It’s easy to see that the ruler extends out of view to those running at that resolution.

BTW: I’ve set the image width to 800 pixels. the actual size is 1243 pixels. If you look close at the ruler you will see that the right-most side states that the box ends at about 780 pixels (minus the left margin of about 5 pixels) so even an 800 pixel wide image would be just a little too big to fit entirely within the window.

I get the impression that usability of the web site for all may be being sacrificed to acquire images for the Journal.

Nuff said //over & out…

Edited by REH for spelling error

Better idea.

As another person who works with websites for fun and professionally, a general rule of thumb is that the website should JUST WORK for the user. They should not have to have any advanced knowledge to use a website, especially when the main users are often not too computer savvy.

What should be done is a system where the phpbb automatically sizes the image to a correct size and then when you click it it pops up in a 2nd layer over top of everything else with the larger version without opening up a new page or tab. This is a phpbb module that can easily be added.

A great example of this is on gunandgame.com/forums

This would fix all issues for everyone

I have already made that suggestion. I don’t remember for sure but I think there may be a setting in the Admin control panel already to set size limits without any add-on package. I believe that phpBB also has the ability to show thumbnails instead of full images. Clicking on the thumbnails would present the user with a full-sized images or have the option of not looking at it at all. Thumbnails would go a long way in speeding up the page load times.

We didn’t use phpBB too long as it didn’t satisfy our needs but it was FREE and it’s open-source. It was easy to hack into (we lost one site due to this), so there’s always the fear of losing your entire collection of topics plus the dreaded virus possibilities.

Roger,
Aaron,

You are both a lot smarter than I am on this issue. I would ask both of you to contact christopherb out Forum Master and sort out the best way to do this. The thumbnails like those used on the BOCN work well and would provide a lot faster access, while still preserving the larger format photos to support the Journal. Chris is very busy and spends a lot of time out of the country. Having some help for Chris running the Forum would be a real service to all Forum members.

The Forum should support the Journal because it is the subscribers to the Journal who pay for and do all the work on the Forum and website. Without the Journal there would be no Forum or website.

In 2010 the IAA had about 1200 members. About 400 of these members do not have email addresses. My rough guess is that there are only about 400 Forum members (about half) who are IAA members and far fewer that are active on the Forum. Since ALL the Journal members contribute to the support of the Forum and the primary purpose of the IAA is to provide service to it’s members. Making sure that Forum information is available to the Journal is one of the important reasons the Forum exists. The Forum doesn’t ask or take dues or donations. The purpose of the Forum is to provide service to IAA members-all of them-in one way or another, and to encourage the study of ammunition.

Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions. It sounds like you have a solution in there somewhere. Please participate in helping find and implement it.

Cheers,

Lew

Holy crap. I just scanned all this stuff; I don’t have time to read all the posts. Ok, I will impose a max width on images. If someone posts some 2000px wide image; you are going to have to go to the hosting site to figure it out. Don’t worry, this doesn’t alter the original image, it alters its representation on the forum. I’ll start with 800px to play to what I think should be the minimum screen resolution.
I handle the back end setting stuff; so if there is an issue, please bring it to my attention. I had no idea this was going on b/c I don’t read every posts; I only read the ones that catch my attention. Please contact me directly with technical issues in the future and I can usually resolve the issue sooner than latter and prevent all this hoo-ha.
I do this for the community, not for me… so if you don’t like the setting, let me know.

Chris.

OK, so I implemented the 800px width max.

But, the above image, on it’s server which is my server, is 3008x2000. But here on the site it’s being represented as 800px width. Hypothetically, if this were an ammo picture and Chris P wanted to use it for the Journal, he could either navigate to the home URL or e-mail me and I would send him the original print resolution image. For us looking for details in a hi-res photo of some headstamp, you can click on the image and a new browser window will open and you can view it in all it’s max width glory.
But, I don’t think this is going to solve the issue of stringing images together. I have the forum set up to max out the browser’s width. I do this to take advantage of people who enjoy running hi-res and it automatically scales to the smallest of browser widths. But hey, if you are running 640px wide, then you need to catch up; that’s just silly small. I think my Droid Incredible runs higher res. This may be an issue that we will have to force people to comply with.
I’ll mess around in the test/dev section and let you all know.
OK, I am opining and thinking out loud too much. Back to my loud music.

I must say that looks like the gang in front of an Engel bin sale at SLICS !

(PS a “cartridge” bin sale as to remain on subject !!)

Happy New Year

Pepper

That’s the singer from the Gallows; great band from the UK. One of my favorite shots I ever took.
breakbreak*

Anyway, I can force every image to thumbnail and then you have to click on the image to get the big version.
Thoughts?

Personally speaking, I’d hate to have only thumbnails in the first instance.

I’m the second furthest house from our village exchange and the 'phone signal arrives by copper wire strung from poles. As such, our ‘broadband’ is not what you could call speedy and barely deserves the epithet. Frankly, the benefit of having full size images easily outweighs the slight wait I might have whilst a page loads. What’s the rush!

If I post more than one image I only have to remember to hit the ‘carriage return’ key in between every visit to Photobucket. After that the ‘system’ does a very fine job of displaying whatever trifles I want to show. Is what we have that broke that we need to fix it?

Just my tuppence worth.

Happy collecting, Peter