Last time I bother with pictures

[mrshanepaul]

my machine either crashes or I just don't have time to wait for them to download. (I'm talking 5 to 10 minutes per image. Now if I feel like this I am very sure there are many people like me who feel the same....

The fact that your machine crashes is somewhat suspicious. Have you installed a decent firewall like kiero? (I will assume you have virus protection) Perhaps you need to swap to another browser also?

You don't use Internet Explorer do you?? If so, have you upgraded to the latest patches?? Usually for dialup people they don't because "it takes too long". Then their computer gets virused for africa. (and possibly BY africa also! ) The average time for an unprotected/patched computer to get infected is about 20 minutes on the net.

I have always used Opera, which is 100% free now BTW, and it is the best browser by a long shot IMHO. Mozilla don't cut it.

Anyone using IE nowadays (who knows better) deserves everything they get. There are faaarrr too many mature alternatives now that are completely free.

When someone complains about connections and crashing, the first stop is always spyware and worms. I have had 3 friends now come to me to fix this very problem, none of them thought it could possibly be trojans or viruses. All had horribly infected computers (1000's of infections) and the symptoms were very varied, intermittent and strange. All included performance problems and crashing.

On another note:

The "smaller" the image, the less quality it has. I think you are mistaking resizing and clipping.

Clipping removes part of the photo, resizing reduces the quality of the image.

Compressing a 640x480 image to 50kb reduces the quality a lot in some cases. (depends on image) It also takes time.

Of course I am not siding with anyone, just pointing out one side of the argument.

[herefishiefishie]

Poor attitude, :-? cheers

funny i thought that of Cess by the way he posted to me, first time he asks about my photos & he goes "and fix it!!!" with the 3 !'s :lol:

Thats why I said why bother, pretty simple really, not attitude.

Be better to say I noticed you have large pics, here are the rules incase you have missed them, can you please do something about it. :roll: sounds a bit better ah 8)

Dial-up different, really?? funny that my realations in NZ say its s*&t just like here :lol:

& you do lose quality with down sizing.

But then again I did give views from both sides, I do see where the mods come from, thanks for noting that.

Interestingly this sort of thing is common on forums I have seen, but is almost exclusively because the server admins are worried about bandwidth for their server, rather than for dial up customers.

Yep, agree with you 100% on that one.

Frenchy

[cees]

Poor attitude, :-? cheers

funny i thought that of Cess by the way he posted to me, first time he asks about my photos & he goes "and fix it!!!" with the 3 !'s :lol:

Thats why I said why bother, pretty simple really, not attitude.

Be better to say I noticed you have large pics, here are the rules incase you have missed them, can you please do something about it. :roll: sounds a bit better ah 8)

Ok I'll bite. The three !!! were because I finally got angry. At that time there was a big (something I can't say) notice at the top of each page asking to please deal with the image sizes and you still ignored it that's why.

It's not about dialup users (even though they would enjoy the site more if the linked images were smaller). It's not about bandwidth because we're talking about hotlinked images. It's about site layout, user experience and maintaining, capturing new visitors. Stats show that new visitors need only 5 seconds to find the back button. If the site hasn't loaded by then I've lost them. My loss, the FNZAS's loss, clubs loss, your loss. Could have been a valuable new member to this community.

And yes I'm angry, not because of the images but because I have just had the worst restaurant experience ever. But that's a different story.

And it's Cees. not Cee's, not Cess

[mrshanepaul]

It's about site layout, user experience and maintaining, capturing new visitors. Stats show that new visitors need only 5 seconds to find the back button. If the site hasn't loaded by then I've lost them.

Again I am not taking sides, but I fel the need to add my 0.02 cents.

Having studied Human Computer Interaction and multimedia/hypermedia design at the postgraduate level (and lectured in similar) at AU, I can say with "some authority" (these things being relative) that this is not correct. In fact, I think this is a classic case of "over applying" general rules of thumb.

While what you say is true of WEBSITES in general, it most certainly does NOT apply to areas where the user understands/expects content is being delivered. If this were the case, then you would never have a flash applications used for anything for this very reason.

As long as the user is aware that what they are viewing is not a general page, there is no problem. At no stage has this theory been applied to heavy content areas. Certainly no mention is made in reference to forums that I am aware of.

Many kudos for applying this to the main pages of this site (I think the design is rather well designed functionally), but to even begin apply this to areas such as the "photos forum" is being somewhat misled by "truisms" of the web world.

I cannot envisige a scenario where a user clicks on a photos thread in this forum and leaves the forum permanently because the photo takes longer than 5 seconds to load!?!?

Of course, as always on the web, mods have the last say and my advice, as is always the case with my advice, is "take it or leave it".

However, if it is truly the fact the only reason for this restriction is the "5 second rule", then don't worry about it in the photos forum. You are doing yourself a disservice.

[cees]

Again I am not taking sides, but I fel the need to add my 0.02 cents.

Don't hide behind this statement. You are taking sides.

I agree with most of what your saying though. Yes as a general rule of thumb what you are saying about 'Human Computer Interaction' could be correct. However, I'm not interested in generalities. I'm much more excited about the exceptions. I'm much more interested in website experience than computer interaction. Two different things. I'm not worried about the user that expects to see a post with large images and has a large screen resolution. She/he will stay regardless. I want to capture those that do arrive here by organic search results and do 'click back' to soon because someone posted a topic with a tag to a (again a word I can't say) big photo on some other server over which I have no control. I'm worried about the one that clicked a link to this site and doesn't know what to expect. And yes I do wish to cater for the needs of this site's users as well. User experience on a 72dpi screen is pretty much the same with low quality/ smallish photos as it is with so-called high quality large size photos. Therefor there is absolutely no reason to slow this site down with large images. And don't get me started on flash-intros...

Surely there must be 'a compromise' or a 'happy medium'.

I've suggested it before and I will suggested it again. Do the following to keep this site fast and still cater for those who wish to see high definition photos

1. Post a low quality, small size photo here using the tag (call it an oversize thumbnail if you wish)

2. Provide a link to the higher quality photo

How hard can it be ?

Thanks for the kind words about the design of this site. I am absolutely horrible at design. Much better at functionality. That's why the site still uses an almost unmodified phpbb standard template. So, it's not my fault.

[Cath]

Thank you Mrshanepaul,

Regarding computer, I get it checked regularly but I, like everyone in the country have to contend with electric fence interference and slow speeds slower than the normal dial up. There is no broadband out here despite Telecon's claim to have covered NZ. Now I know this is slower than normal dial up and therefore some patience regarding images is required however it helps a great deal if people resize them correctly - this helps for all dial up, I'm not arguing this just for me!

[mrshanepaul]

Don't hide behind this statement. You are taking sides.

Actually I am not. Being somewhat academically minded I can argue any point, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I once argued on behalf of Sadam, Osama and had the person I was talking to firmly believe that I was in support of communism, terrorism against the US and dictatorships.

When I hear/read something I think is incorrect, I like to challenge the person to find out why they think that. (in the above example he was trying to say that the war on iraq was legal and the UN was wrong to hold back - they deserved everything they got)

So I while I respect that there are many valid reasons why a site might want to limit image size, I do not agree that the 5 second rule is one of them. If you had said "I don't want my server being overloaded", I would have agreed.

Also, I can see how an artist might be a little less than happy with being forced to reduce the quality of high quality images.

I'm much more interested in website experience than computer interaction. Two different things.

It is a subset of HCI, not a separate topic. Web design limits your ability to create GUI interfaces, but this is still a very interactive environment. I also said I studied hypermedia/multimedia.

I want to capture those that do arrive here by organic search

This is a valid point not mentioned before. You are expecting to capture users directly to the photo threads from search queries. Perhaps even google images (something I use a lot) or some such.

Assuming that you are sure more than one visitor comes into the site directly to the photos thread, then I concur that this is a good reason.

It is a real shame that there is no auto resizer like there is for tradme. (click on the image, get the large version)

User experience on a 72dpi screen is pretty much the same with low quality/ smallish photos as it is with so-called high quality large size photos.

I totally disagree with this. Everyone browses at different resolutions and has different screen sizes. One should never soley cater to the lowest common denominator. In this case, as you say, they see no difference so it would not make sense to cater to them at all.

And don't get me started on flash-intros...

To be fair, flash intros is perhaps the worst example of flash. (god they are annoying) Second only to entire flash websites with no html alternative. I was mainly refering to flash applications/displays on the site. The user expects a wait and they are happy with this...within reason.

1. Post a low quality, small size photo here using the tag (call it an oversize thumbnail if you wish)

2. Provide a link to the higher quality photo

I think this is a very good suggestion. There are some free programs available on the web that can auto-resize your photos and make "thumbnails" without too much work. Perhaps it is time to use tucows or some such??

Thanks for the kind words about the design of this site. I am absolutely horrible at design. Much better at functionality. That's why the site still uses an almost unmodified phpbb standard template. So, it's not my fault.

Functionality and design are not seperate topics, one is a subset of the other so don't sell yourself short. This site is easy to navigate and everything appears where you expect it to be. That is good design.

Of course you don't have a animated cartoon fish that welcomes the user to the site, but that is art...

Anyways, it is saturday morning and I have written too much already. I am glad the people on this forum are capable of spirited debate without resulting in flaming each other into oblivion. Very refreshing. :lol:

[mrshanepaul]

Thank you Mrshanepaul,

Now I know this is slower than normal dial up and therefore some patience regarding images is required however it helps a great deal if people resize them correctly - this helps for all dial up, I'm not arguing this just for me!

I am not sure what "checked regularily" means, but I was very suspicious when you said your computer would crash when trying to download large images. This is not normal behaviour.

I also assume that this mean you are using IE, since when browsing on a slow connection, IE is perhaps the worst browser. Others load the html first and request the images in separate requests, so at least SOME of the page displays earlier.

But seriously, give Opera a go. Free, fast, tabbed browsing, mouse gestures and a really good (fully customisable) interface. Best part is that you never have to worry about IE security holes.

Now I sound like a second hand car salesman...

[cees]

Being somewhat academically minded myself I too can argue a point regardless of whether I agree with it or not. Some debates are with myself and that does make things interesting sometimes. However, the issue we are discussing here is the use of embedded images in posts i.e. using the tag to load images from other servers. About this issue I do take full responsibily for what I post here and not just "present a point of view". If you search the site you will find that I have asked on many occasions that the users do the following

1. Post a low quality, small size photo here using the tag (call it an oversize thumbnail if you wish)

2. Provide a link to the higher quality photo

(I sound like a broken record)

Simple, easy to do and does cater for everyones needs.

We could debate issues here all weeked (like functionality and design are seperate topics. But than again we probably have different definitions of what is functionality and what is design) but I don't want to do that.

cheers

Cees

[Cath]

ok guys, here you are I have uploaded an image of Billaneys to my site with the same image resized. Please take a look at http://www.cathydee.com/fishresize.htm

and hopefully, you can see what I am on about - no loss of quality etc very small image size - I have made the actual image a little smaller and I have cropped it somewhat. I have also reduced the pixel sixe and the dpi.

And I use Opera, Netscape, Explorer and recently Firefox, I try them all on my sites as I am a website designer. Mostly personally, I use explorer because I like it. I also promise not to argue about this any more

:lol:

[mrshanepaul]

Well this topic seems done to death, hopefully the result is not losing what some have said is one of the best photographers on this site...

We ALL have to abide by the rules, whether we like it or not.

If you dont like it, dont come here and moan.

This is his site, he will tell us how he wants it run etc.

As already pointed out, if Cees wants to ban everyone from posting anything apart from 4x4 pixel photos of men wearing woman's undergarments, then he is perfectly entitled to. :roll: His site, final say.

But if you are dictorial about it (and he has not been so far from what I have seen) then you are going to lose members.

e.g. Anyone who questions the rules is said to be moaning and should just fall into line or leave.

Dictatorships always sound easier to run than they are.

The irony is that the rule in question was created to try and stop the loss of members...

Anyways, discussion has happened and the final say has been given.

[Caryl]

Hey Cath I have tried your link but it says the page can't be displayed.

[Ira]

ok guys, here you are I have uploaded an image of Billaneys to my site with the same image resized. Please take a look at http://www.cathydee.com/fishresize.htm

and hopefully, you can see what I am on about - no loss of quality etc very small image size - I have made the actual image a little smaller and I have cropped it somewhat. I have also reduced the pixel sixe and the dpi.

Ahahaha, The bigger top one finished downloading first for me.

[monaro1]

cath,your link dont work

keep the photos comming,thay are worth looking at

IMO the rules are the rules and if you break them you must fix it

you all seem to be very switched on people about computer stuff so i am sure that there is a simpel answer to this problem

is there someone out there that can help with a program that will resize the photos automaticly (i dont know,just an idear)

my son and his friends are only 15 years old and thay do amazing things with a computers and over come ANY problems thay come up against so i am sure that you all will to

GOOD LUCK

patience is the key

[cees]

he says wat comes and wat goes on here

not quite. like to think we are a community and find compromises that fits everyone

Its bad enough that he's gotten all upset about this whole situation!

I'm not upset about this. Good healthy discussions.

I'm angry about this absolutely horrible meal I had yesterday. Farewell dinner for someone who worked in office at Brichville school for 30 years. Can't name the restaurant. Dinner supposed to start at 7 pm. My mains was served at 9:30 pm. The food was disgusting.

Anyway mystic. Don't worry about me.

fwiw, Billaney and I are fine.

[Caryl]

Cath's link works for me now. Both pics loaded within 1sec but I have broadband

I do not see what all the fuss is about. It is so simple to put a small pic in here and if you want then link it to a bigger image.

Sorry about the meal Cees. Hope nobody suffered any ill effects. A friend of ours had a work trip organised to the local paintball game place. As arranged, 30 of them turned up - but nobody from the company did! At least it didn't involve food :lol:

We are going out for a company meal in Nelson on Monday night so I hope we enjoy it. It is a restaurant out on the port road and supposed to have a good reputation so fingers crossed. Perhaps I will photograph the meal and post a thumbnail of it :lol:

[livebearer_breeder]

As long as you are ok Cees, thats wat matters to me.

You have dun so much for us here, and I appreciate it more than you think.

Glad to hear yur ok tho.

Thanx.

Wow.

Although I agree that Cees has done alot for the fish community online and in general in New Zealand, i think there's some serious sucking up going on there

Shae

[livebearer_breeder]

Very True

[Ira]

Not everything is about fish ya know! :-)

BLASPHEMY!!!

[mrshanepaul]

oooooohhhh.

Group Hug Everyone!?!? :roll:

[simfish]

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

[Modern Angl]

/em grabs a guitar and tries to sing Kumbaya very very badly!

All together now!!

[jude]

Who is "Em"? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Modern Angl]

'/em' = emotes

/em falls over

it should be read as 'Modern Angel falls over'

This has been your Netiquette lesson for today, carry on!

[jude]

Hmmmmmmmm

Now I know about /me cause I use it in chat .............. but I suspect I am having my chain pulled over /em

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: