On 12/18/06, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote: Size is not a problem: the png version is about 4000x4000 and I can view it fine with an Athlon 900Mhz with 2gb of ram, while I gave up on the .svg after two minutes at 100% cpu. Seems rather a problem with Firefox's svg handling. It's here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:India_roadway_map.svg Alfio

fyi, i have a computer from the flinstones-age, 250 mb RAM on a pentium III, and the rest is probably bas as well, and i can view the image without big problems, and without firefox craching. I have to note however that i was unable to see the text in the image when i enlarged it, i was only able to see the background. Lodewijk 2006/12/18, Walter van Kalken <walter(a)vankalken.net>et>:

That is not the point. IS there nobody here who understands that we make this project for all the people out there! Not to satisfy our own geekly lust to pursue the latest fashion in computerelectronics and programming. *It is not about me being able to view this or not*. It is about the many many people out there who do not have the latest gear installed on their computer, nor will they install the latest gear on their computers. But it seems that plea is falling on deaf (wo)mens ears here. And it seems with these kind of answers to me that we are just making this project for the computersavvy 1% of this world population. Do we really need to be the trendsetter like with .svg?????? And with that exclude the majority of the internetters, including those in the countries that we say we set out to help in the first place? Or should we follow the herd so we can have a product that the fast majority of the people can use? I thought the wikimediaprojects were about the last one. We should not be the trendsetters in these areas. Because that means nobody can use it. You are talking about being better supported in a couple of years Briana. Ask yourself the question do you want people to be able to use this graphics *NOW *or in a couple of years? Also putting warnings up is strange. Why put them up. Like I said in my initial mail. These graphics are *USELESS *when viewed as a thumbnail. They might just as well not be there. Waerth

Brianna Laugher wrote: Yes and now here is the catch. The graphic is all over wikipedia already. Like in nl.wikipedia on the India page as a thumbnail. Now someone clicks on it and is immediately taken to the original huge .svg file which crashes firefox 2 about 50% of the times and IE doesn't seem to be able to open it at all. You see Briana they are not taken to that page on commons with the description file. Which might mean they wouldn't get in any kind of trouble. But they are taken, after clicking, to that monster file immediately. And like I said before, the thumb is useless if you cannot view the original. Now there is a .png which is just as detailed it seems. But since there is an effort going on wikimediawide to replace all .png's with .svg's this means trouble for most internetusers! Why don't we do it the other way around. Put the .png versions on the pages in the projects, with a link to the .svg versions. You see ,png any browser can open without problems. Why must we always be the first? Waerth

Pic is about halfway on: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/India if I click on it it brings me directly to the upload.xxx.xxx file instead of to the commonspage. Waerth

On 12/18/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: Just to make sure, when I tried to get to the image from [[nl:India]] I was taken straight to the image page, not the image itself. If you still try to see the complete one after that it's your decision, not our fault. henna -- "Maybe you knew early on that your track went from point A to B, but unlike you I wasn't given a map at birth!" Alyssa, "Chasing Amy"

Walter van Kalken wrote: Come on now, Walter, we're already the trendsetters in using massive collaboration on the Internet to write an encyclopedia. There's no way we can try to be mainstream. We're radical. I think trailblazer (German: Bahnbrecher) is the word for it. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

On 12/18/06, Walter van Kalken <walter(a)vankalken.net> wrote: [snip] How about some perspective? The majority of people on earth to not have a computer. Most probably do not have immediate access to a desktop computer. Most people certainly aren't using firefox, which is the only browser that I'm aware of right now which will try to render SVGs and fall over in the process. And like others who have already responded, for me clicking on the image in nlwikipedia takes me to the image page which displays correctly. Are you sure you are being taken directly to the SVG file?

Le Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:40:07 +0700, Walter van Kalken a écrit: One of the possible solution is to import a PNG version at a higher resolution. But I will strongly discourage you to ask to replace SVG maps by bitmap ones, only because your computer is slow. SVG gives additonal informations that are unvaluable. -- Nojhan

On 12/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Ignoring firefox bugs with SVGs for a moment (which really aren't related to image size so much)... is there *actually* an issue with low end systems *crashing* when they view large images? In order to test these complaints, I opened a 6000x7000 jpeg image on an old win95 box with 64 megs of ram without crashing.. although it was slow.

On 26/12/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: I gotta say "don't do that then." The SVG is rendered on the media description page, you don't *have* to click through. - d.

On 12/23/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: Remember that the problem is *not* the size of the image: I can open with no problem 10000x10000 pixel images. But a complicated .svg file can freeze Firefox for a long time even if it is smaller. And the only information one can gather from the image description page is the image size, which is useless in this case. The actual fault is in Firefox's plugin. Neither the user (who shouldn't be concerned with these kind of things) nor the image author (which is trying to do the best possible image, and should be praised for doing so) are to blame. That no browser, to my knowledge, is able to open complicated .svg files without bringing even good computers to their knees is unfurtunate, but I see no easy solution. Alfio