Timwi (timwi@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.