Showing a warning and making the user explicitly chose is one option to
explore, but it has some potential drawbacks:
- For users that can display the image, the workflow is less fluent
requiring one more upfront decision.
- For users that cannot display the image in more detail (they may just
wanted the image a bit bigger to read some label) the options are to (a)
crash the browser or (b) do nothing.
An alternative behaviour I was considering for huge files, is to load a
"large" version of it (not the original huge one) and indicate so while the
image is loading ("due to its big size, a scaled version of the file will
be loaded instead. You can access the download icon to get or display the
original file."). In this way, most users that are interested in just
viewing some more details will be able to do so just by clicking, and those
specifically interested on displaying huge images will do that in an
explicit and more informed way (file size is shown in the download panel)
and with a "download" option (less likely to break crash their browser)
next to the "view in browser" one.
In any case, a notion of when a file is considered huge, and whether we
should estimate that on resolution or file size will be very useful for
whichever approach we choose.
Pau
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Do any of you have data on what the threshold might be for identifying
file
sizes that might crash your browser? Or do you
know what best practices
are
on that point? It would be good if we could agree
on a limit that is at
least partly informed by data.
I imagine its less about file size, and more about number of pixels
(or uncompressed file size)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Largeimage says 50 MP, but
that seems small to me. Do we know what causes browser crashes for
large images - is it simply running out of RAM causing the browser to
swap all over the place and be slow or are there other issues at play.
(Based on back of the napkin calculations, 50 MP = very roughly 280 MB
ram. )
If there is no reliable data or best practices, we might have to
determine
this threshold together arbitrarily, based on
common sense. In that case,
what do you think would be a reasonable threshold when we would start
giving
the warning? 50Mb or above? 100Mb or above?
Keep in mind its not just crashing the browser. Accidentally
downloading a gigabyte (or whatever) of data without meaning to is
often a bad thing. Particularly for people on metered internet.
If I was to pick numbers out of a hat, I'd start warning maybe at
images > 50 MB, or > 75 MP, but that's chosen rather arbitrarily
--bawolff
_______________________________________________
Multimedia mailing list
Multimedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
--
Pau Giner
Interaction Designer
Wikimedia Foundation