Having picture thumbnails

[benupton]

Hi,
Just a suggestion, I think that it would be a good idea to have thumbnails that appear in the thread so you don't have to open every picture to find out what it is.. an example is CNCZone and IAP if you don't understand what I am meaning.

New Machine Build Tubot - Page 2 - CNCzone.com-The Largest Machinist Community on the net! (http://www.cnczone.com/forums/open_source_cnc_machine_designs/120398-tubot-2.html)

Not sure if it is an option already or not.

Maybe people agree maybe they don't.

Thanks Ben

[snowyskiesau]

It's already a standard feature. See this thread (http://www.woodworkforums.com/f11/woodwork-147991/) for example.

When creating a thread, you just add you images using the Manage Attachemnts option, the forum software will automatically create thumbnails from you uploaded images.

[Acco]

Sounds like you have the "Show Images" box in your "User CP" "Thread Display Options" unticked?

If you tick this box, the thumbnails will show as images as you've linked to instead of text :2tsup:

[benupton]

Yes that's the one, thank you very much. :2tsup::2tsup:

[A Duke]

Hi,
just a couple of comments. I find it horribly frustrating when I click a thumbnail and the picture is no bigger, and also the ones where the picture although bigger is not as clear as the thumbnail.
I don't expect anything to be done about it I just wanted to say it.
Regards.

[BobL]

Unless there are dozens of images involved or an image contains a lot of detail and a full screen image helps to see what is going on, I dislike thumbnails, intensely and nearly always embed my images in the text. When I read a post I want to be able to follow the discussion as text and see a half screen image at the same time - not flipping back and forth between test and full size image. The problem is worse when an image contains labels that related directly to what is being said in the text.

All my images are always well with spec in terms of kb. I have posted over 2400 images, mostly 800 x 600 with an average size of 72 kb.

[Big Shed]

Unless there are dozens of images involved or an image contains a lot of detail and a full screen image helps to see what is going on, I dislike thumbnails, intensely and nearly always embed my images in the text. When I read a post I want to be able to follow the discussion as text and see a half screen image at the same time - not flipping back and forth between test and full size image. The problem is worse when an image contains labels that related directly to what is being said in the text.

All my images are always well with spec in terms of kb. I have posted over 2400 images, mostly 800 x 600 with an average size of 72 kb.

I also like my images in the text Bob, but I note that you usually have both the thumbnails at the bottom and the image in the text. Seems a bit superfluous, or is there a reason you do that?

[BobL]

I also like my images in the text Bob, but I note that you usually have both the thumbnails at the bottom and the image in the text. Seems a bit superfluous, or is there a reason you do that?

The thumbnails at the bottom is not done by me but by the system. Is there a way they can be removed.

[Big Shed]

The thumbnails at the bottom is not done by me but by the system. Is there a way they can be removed.

Bob, it is probably in the way you upload your pictures.


200558



The way I do it, is first you go to Manage Attachments, upload the thumbnails as per normal.



200557



Then you go to where you want each picture in the text, click on the paper clip (next to the smilie face on the tool bar and select the picture you want form the ones you uploaded, it will then appear in the text at a reasonable size and the thumb disappears, much more friendly to all forum users I think. If people then want to see it larger they can click on your picture an it goes to the size you uploaded. Try it.

[BobL]

Bob, it is probably in the way you upload your pictures.


200558



The way I do it, is first you go to Manage Attachments, upload the thumbnails as per normal.



200557



Then you go to where you want each picture in the text, click on the paper clip (next to the smilie face on the tool bar and select the picture you want form the ones you uploaded, it will then appear in the text at a reasonable size and the thumb disappears, much more friendly to all forum users I think. If people then want to see it larger they can click on your picture an it goes to the size you uploaded. Try it.

Sure I know about that method, but I reckon the resulting in-text thumbnails are still way too small - especially to read any labels.

Best practice web design (as designated by me :D) says minimize the number of clicks and where ever possible maintain all related info on the same page.

[Big Shed]

Sure I know about that method, but I reckon the resulting in-text thumbnails are still way too small - especially to read any labels.

Best practice web design (as designated by me :D) says minimize the number of clicks and where ever possible maintain all related info on the same page.

Well Bob, you seem to be in a majority of one here.

Your method requires an extra click for most of your pictures as they are normally too large to fit on most peoples' screen, including mine.

Besides that it looks rather silly to have 2 sets of pictures in each of your posts and it uses up a lot of extra screen real estate, requiring more scrolling to get to the next post, particularly in threads where you have a lot of pictures.

So, I tend to look at not only what I like, but what is more convenient and considerate for others as well.

[BobL]

Well Bob, you seem to be in a majority of one here.

That's fine. I do feel very special :D


Your method requires an extra click for most of your pictures as they are normally too large to fit on most peoples' screen, including mine.
Most of my pics are 800 x 600. Standard screen sizes these days are 1920 x 1080 and getting bigger every year. Maybe it's the suburb I live in but in the last couple of years I saw many 800 x 600 screens being put on the verge for council pickup.


Besides that it looks rather silly to have 2 sets of pictures in each of your posts and it uses up a lot of extra screen real estate, requiring more scrolling to get to the next post, particularly in threads where you have a lot of pictures.
I'll work on getting rid of the redundant thumbnails - I don't like it but maybe I will just have to go to an external site for images.


So, I tend to look at not only what I like, but what is more convenient and considerate for others as well.
You are too nice. I must be more of an, "in your face" type of person.

[Acco]

I'll work on getting rid of the redundant thumbnails - I don't like it but maybe I will just have to go to an external site for images.


Rather than going offsite, you could do what Woodwould (http://www.woodworkforums.com/members/13149-woodwould/albums/woodwould-s-furniture/) does and upload the images to your album and then insert the image.

This thread (http://www.woodworkforums.com/f187/george-ii-elm-corner-cupboard-144145/) of Woodwould is an example of what I'm talking about :2tsup:, no thumbnails and full sized images.

[BobL]

Rather than going offsite, you could do what Woodwould (http://www.woodworkforums.com/members/13149-woodwould/albums/woodwould-s-furniture/) does and upload the images to your album and then insert the image.

This thread (http://www.woodworkforums.com/f187/george-ii-elm-corner-cupboard-144145/) of Woodwould is an example of what I'm talking about :2tsup:, no thumbnails and full sized images.

That's a good idea.
Test
http://www.woodworkforums.com/members/9450-bobl/albums/bobls-general-album/8150-cygnets.jpg

One problem might be the number of pics the albums can hold. I see WW has over 500 in there so going on my yearly average so far that will do me for about a year. I guess I can delete them after that.

[Acco]

But if you delete them, it'll leave holes in your threads!!!

Think Neil removed the limit on how many you could have in your album, we'd have to ask I supposed.

[Big Shed]

That's fine. I do feel very special :D


Most of my pics are 800 x 600. Standard screen sizes these days are 1920 x 1080 and getting bigger every year. Maybe it's the suburb I live in but in the last couple of years I saw many 800 x 600 screens being put on the verge for council pickup.


I'll work on getting rid of the redundant thumbnails - I don't like it but maybe I will just have to go to an external site for images.


You are too nice. I must be more of an, "in your face" type of person.

It is not so much that you are an "in your face" type of person, you are more an "off the screen" type of person.

I don't live in a suburb, just a simple country bumpkin, but my screen (notebook) is 1680 wide.

Let's take one of your threads that has a few pictures in it and look at your pictures on my 1680 screen.

First of all not one of the vertical pictures can be be seen without scrolling, rather negating the "minimum" clicks design brief you talked about.

200564

Even the horizontal one doesn't fit on my 1680 wide screen.

200563

So rather than getting the whole story across, people have scroll up and down and side to side to see what you are talking about.

It appears to me that if you reduced the size of your picture a bit, your story would be clearer and easier to read.

Now if we were a photograpic forum, that would be different.

The ducks fit on the screen no prob. There is supposed to be a limit of 100 pictures per album, as far as I know no limit on the number of albums.

[Acco]

Oh and large images over the 800 width are are a pain when your using an iPad as the everything else is resized to fit the screen rather than scrolling across the screen, as the iPads only have up and down scrolling :gaah:

[BobL]

But if you delete them, it'll leave holes in your threads!!!
Sure - but it will keep me going for a while at least. Who knows what might happen in 12 months?


Think Neil removed the limit on how many you could have in your album, we'd have to ask I supposed.
I wouldn't expect him to.

[Big Shed]

Oh and large images over the 800 width are are a pain when your using an iPad as the everything else is resized to fit the screen rather than scrolling across the screen, as the iPads only have up and down scrolling :gaah:
And they increase the width of the whole thread, so all posts have to be scrolled side to side on a PC, again making it harder to focus on story and pictures.

[Acco]

Hey Fred, noticed that your using the layout with the members profiles on the left rather than on top of the posts, I find most images fit if profiles are on top except for those panaroma shots.

[BobL]

It is not so much that you are an "in your face" type of person, you are more an "off the screen" type of person.

I don't live in a suburb, just a simple country bumpkin, but my screen (notebook) is 1680 wide.
So 800 x 600 should still be fine?


Let's take one of your threads that has a few pictures in it and look at your pictures on my 1680 screen.

First of all not one of the vertical pictures can be be seen without scrolling, rather negating the "minimum" clicks design brief you talked about.
What happens with some those portrait shots is I normally size stuff to 800 wide but forget that when I do that to portrait shots I need to reverse the sizing.

Regarding panoramas: I will either thumbnail them or make them 800 wide max when embedded within a post.

Regarding albums: I see WoodWould has 500 images, was that by special dispensation?

[RETIRED]

If I may put in my 2 cents worth.

Bob, I edit your panoramic shots because it throws out the whole thread as Fred said and I have a bloody big screen.

The admins can allot more picture space if needed.

As a preference we like the pictures to be hosted here, not off site, if anything happens to the host or the member gets deleted from the host site all the pictures are lost and in some cases we have to delete the whole thread as it makes no sense.

[Big Shed]

Oh and large images over the 800 width are are a pain when your using an iPad as the everything else is resized to fit the screen rather than scrolling across the screen, as the iPads only have up and down scrolling :gaah:

Tried the other way, but again you get fewer posts per horizontal screen and the member info interrupts the flow.

Most pictures fit within my normal forum screens, but there are a few exceptions:)

[Acco]

Tried the other way, but again you get fewer posts per horizontal screen and the member info interrupts the flow.

Most pictures fit within my normal forum screens, but there are a few exceptions:)

:2tsup:

[Big Shed]

So 800 x 600 should still be fine?


What happens with some those portrait shots is I normally size stuff to 800 wide but forget that when I do that to portrait shots I need to reverse the sizing.

Regarding panoramas: I will either thumbnail them or make them 800 wide max when embedded within a post.

Regarding albums: I see WoodWould has 500 images, was that by special dispensation?

Yes 800x600 is fine for most people.

But the verticals are sometimes a pain, and as also said, the panoramas and/or 1024 and up really create havoc with the thread width.

To be fair it shouldn't be up to Admins and Mods to spend time reducing peoples' picture sizes.

The forum is there to be enjoyed by "everyone" and not "everyone" has or works on a humongous screen.

I have 3 albums one with 84 one with 137 and one with 77 photos in it and when I upload more photos all tell me I have 2 photos left!

[A Duke]

Hi,
This thread has been quite informative, I've learnt stacks, I might even get more adventurous.
Regards

[Mulgabill]

Yes Fred, as Acco said you have the Members Profile on the Left not the top of each thread/reply. How do you do that???

[Acco]

Yes Fred, as Acco said you have the Members Profile on the Left not the top of each thread/reply. How do you do that???

Far left bottom corner, there is a drop down box which has various skins. I'm using wwf :2tsup:

[Big Shed]

I use Ubeaut->Legacy Layout

[Mulgabill]

Thanks DJ & Fred:2tsup: