I applied what was requested on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13214 having read (as far as I could) the discussions taken place previously about this feature (and the vice versa). My general understanding was that the opposite (forcing a scale up) was somehow turned down previously, although it has been practiced lately.
I had my own reasonings in support of stopping images less than 120*120 to scale up. Duesentrieb materialized my idea in few words excellently while we were chatting over IRC: "scaling up generally doesn't make sense. maybe it would be nice to be able to force it in some cases, not sure. if that should be allowed, it might be best to leave it to the client". If you ever use a slow internet connection and browse one of the galleries of small icons on Commons, you will notice how page load is extended merely because the images are being downloaded in a larger (in KB) scaled-up (thus no more nice looking) sizes.
However, I'm sending this email, not to insist on my reasoning, but to say that I didn't apply that change because of my own desire, but I did it because I thought there has been a (shadow) agreement about this.
Certainly, I'm open to comments and suggestions. Maybe we can reach a final solution which satisfies both sides this time.
Cheers,
Hojjat (aka Huji)
Hmmm... what about creating a $wgGalleryScaleSmallImages and defaulting it to false in DefaultSettings.php!?
~Daniel Friesen(Dantman) of: -The Gaiapedia (http://gaia.wikia.com) -Wikia ACG on Wikia.com (http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_ACG) -and Wiki-Tools.com (http://wiki-tools.com)
Huji wrote:
I applied what was requested on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13214 having read (as far as I could) the discussions taken place previously about this feature (and the vice versa). My general understanding was that the opposite (forcing a scale up) was somehow turned down previously, although it has been practiced lately.
I had my own reasonings in support of stopping images less than 120*120 to scale up. Duesentrieb materialized my idea in few words excellently while we were chatting over IRC: "scaling up generally doesn't make sense. maybe it would be nice to be able to force it in some cases, not sure. if that should be allowed, it might be best to leave it to the client". If you ever use a slow internet connection and browse one of the galleries of small icons on Commons, you will notice how page load is extended merely because the images are being downloaded in a larger (in KB) scaled-up (thus no more nice looking) sizes.
However, I'm sending this email, not to insist on my reasoning, but to say that I didn't apply that change because of my own desire, but I did it because I thought there has been a (shadow) agreement about this.
Certainly, I'm open to comments and suggestions. Maybe we can reach a final solution which satisfies both sides this time.
Cheers,
Hojjat (aka Huji) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Huji huji.huji@gmail.com wrote:
I had my own reasonings in support of stopping images less than 120*120 to scale up. Duesentrieb materialized my idea in few words excellently while we were chatting over IRC: "scaling up generally doesn't make sense. maybe it would be nice to be able to force it in some cases, not sure. if that should be allowed, it might be best to leave it to the client". If you ever use a slow internet connection and browse one of the galleries of small icons on Commons, you will notice how page load is extended merely because the images are being downloaded in a larger (in KB) scaled-up (thus no more nice looking) sizes.
Generally we don't rely on client-side scaling, because in many cases it's awful in quality.
Simetrical wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Huji huji.huji@gmail.com wrote:
I had my own reasonings in support of stopping images less than 120*120 to scale up. Duesentrieb materialized my idea in few words excellently while we were chatting over IRC: "scaling up generally doesn't make sense. maybe it would be nice to be able to force it in some cases, not sure. if that should be allowed, it might be best to leave it to the client". If you ever use a slow internet connection and browse one of the galleries of small icons on Commons, you will notice how page load is extended merely because the images are being downloaded in a larger (in KB) scaled-up (thus no more nice looking) sizes.
Generally we don't rely on client-side scaling, because in many cases it's awful in quality.
Scaling up (eg when requested explicitly) is always left to the client, as:
a) it's going to look awful anyway ;)
b) no sense making, storing, and transferring a larger image
-- brion
So I think I wasn't wrong about the agreement. Apparently, I used the wrong method to apply it though :(
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Simetrical wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Huji huji.huji@gmail.com wrote:
I had my own reasonings in support of stopping images less than
120*120 to
scale up. Duesentrieb materialized my idea in few words excellently
while we
were chatting over IRC: "scaling up generally doesn't make sense.
maybe it
would be nice to be able to force it in some cases, not sure. if that
should
be allowed, it might be best to leave it to the client". If you ever
use a
slow internet connection and browse one of the galleries of small
icons on
Commons, you will notice how page load is extended merely because the
images
are being downloaded in a larger (in KB) scaled-up (thus no more nice looking) sizes.
Generally we don't rely on client-side scaling, because in many cases it's awful in quality.
Scaling up (eg when requested explicitly) is always left to the client, as:
a) it's going to look awful anyway ;)
b) no sense making, storing, and transferring a larger image
-- brion
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Pretty much my thoughts on that.
Brion Vibber-3 wrote:
Simetrical wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Huji huji.huji@gmail.com wrote:
I had my own reasonings in support of stopping images less than 120*120 to scale up. Duesentrieb materialized my idea in few words excellently while we were chatting over IRC: "scaling up generally doesn't make sense. maybe it would be nice to be able to force it in some cases, not sure. if that should be allowed, it might be best to leave it to the client". If you ever use a slow internet connection and browse one of the galleries of small icons on Commons, you will notice how page load is extended merely because the images are being downloaded in a larger (in KB) scaled-up (thus no more nice looking) sizes.
Generally we don't rely on client-side scaling, because in many cases it's awful in quality.
Scaling up (eg when requested explicitly) is always left to the client, as:
a) it's going to look awful anyway ;)
b) no sense making, storing, and transferring a larger image
-- brion
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Huji huji.huji@gmail.com wrote:
I applied what was requested on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13214 having read (as far as I could) the discussions taken place previously about this feature (and the vice versa).
just my 2 cents
From what can I see the previous bug referenced, the 3499, is about
rescaling in up of svg image.
SVG images are actually rather different from png or jpg images in this respect. First they actually scale up at least relatively well (and in most of the case very well). Second I think that who write svg images (unless he/she already know where the image will go and what the size of the images displayed will be) tend to consider the size in a relative way.
In the page Help:SVG on Commons in the Frequently Asked Questions section ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:SVG#Frequently_Asked_Questions ), at the question
How large should my SVG images be?
the answer starts with
The absolute size of the document does not matter much.
So the two cases (bug 13214 and bug 3499) are actually quite different.
And so how the decision to blow up or not to blow up the image could be based on the fact that the image will terrible loose its quality or not (depending on the file type).
Moreover a parameter of gallery could be implemented so that gallery is forced not to blow up image in any case if this parameter is set (or if the default is to never blow up, a parameter could force the blow up). And moreover a parameter could be passed to force a dimension of a single image (until it is lower than than the default value).
AnyFile
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org