Timwi (timwi(a)gmx.net) [050523 11:37]:
John R. Owens wrote:
>I don't know if this might have ever been
suggested before already,
>but perhaps a change in software could allow us to set a maximum
>image size in our user preferences? Either in width/height, e.g.
>"always shrink images to less than 200 pixels wide or 150 pixels
>high, whichever is smaller", or in kB, e.g. "always shrink images to
>less than 10 kB".
This is absolutely brilliant. I love and support this
idea.
Sounds good to me too.
Not because I have a slow connection (which I do, but
I don't mind), but
rather because I'm getting annoyed when people make images so huge
because they have a 1280x1024 resolution and they think everyone else
must have that too. (I even had one replying back to me saying "Not
everyone has a resolution as low as yours, so please leave the image
this big!")
We have thumbnailing code, so it does make some sense to have images be
huge on the page and reduced as needed.
>And of course, you probably wouldn't want the
rule applied to Image:
>namespace pages.
Yes, you do want it applied to Image:-namespace pages.
The actual image
above it is not part of the page. :)
We already have such a size limitation for the Image: pages as an option in
preferences. Perhaps it just needs some even smaller settings.
>But then again, you might also end up with weird
formatting, when the
>author/editor inserting into a page doesn't know how large the image
>ends up being displayed.
People should learn that formatting is more than just
looking at what it
looks like on *your* screen. Pages must be formatted in such a way that
they are readable on any resolution (OK, I guess we can assume a minimum
resolution of 800x600, but not more!). Resizing your window is all it
takes to check. Once this is done properly, varying sizes of images
shouldn't have any adverse effect on the formatting.
This is a matter of editorial judgement. "Image reshuffle" is an occasional
edit summary of mine.
- d.