Lead Adventure Forum
General => Announcements and forum stuff => About Forum => Topic started by: Mancha on 22 July 2009, 05:21:12 PM
-
It drives me nuts that a vertical scroll bar for wide posts is contained ONLY at the very bottom of the post. This makes viewing a stack of pictures very difficult, as one must review first the left half of the pictures, then go to the bottom to scroll right, then go back through and review only the right half of the pictures. Is there any way to change the forum settings such that each picture has its own vertical scroll bar?
-
I agree...there must be an easy way for people to post their wonderful works so that we don't have to scroll. >:(
-
I never have to scroll since getting a modern monitor. When discussing picture sizes a few months ago I was told I was behind the times because my old-fashioned monitor couldn't show an 800 pixel-wide image on the LAF without there being a scroll bar. So I got a new monitor.
I'd like to be as helpful as possible and not post pics that are too big for other people's screens (when I had my old monitor I never posted anything that caused a scroll on my own screen, I thought that was just being polite). I'd like to continue to do this but since I realised I was such a backward caveman and came out of my cave I found I had no idea what was a good size for everybody else. It would be nice to know what resolution the "Average LAFer" uses and what their screen can cope with, as I have no wish to be the cause of annoyance to others, but as it is I'm totally in the dark as to what is the right size. With my new monitor, nobody's pics are too big for my screen any more.
I agree about it being annoying (even though it doesn't affect me any more). Since the LAF changed format last year, one downside has been the way the forum treats wide pics. The old LAF did it differently I'm sure, but I can't remember what it did.
By the way, don't you mean horizontal scroll bar? A vertical scroll bar scrolls up and down the page, not left and right.
-
800 pixels wide for photos - maximum. No need to change any settings on this or any other forum. Posters just need to lean correct, er...Posting Picture Etiquette ;)
-
By the way, don't you mean horizontal scroll bar? A vertical scroll bar scrolls up and down the page, not left and right.
Er, of course you're correct. ::)
I have a very modern, and extra-wide monitor at work. But for whatever reason, instead of showing more of a wide picture, it shows exactly the same portion of the picture as does my old, narrow monitor at home. The wide monitor merely stretches that visible portion of the picture. I've tried to change the settings so as to show more picture without stretching, but I've been unable to so far.
-
I do not have a small monitor. However, I do other things on my computer than browse the web, so I like to keep my browser no more than 900-1000 pixels wide. Telling someone to upgrade their equipment is unhelpful, IMNERHO.
I would be content with either a scrollbar /above/ each image, or maybe an auto-resize down to 800px on the images.
-
I didn't tell anyone to do anything, Froggy. Where did I say that? I was asking about folks' monitor sizes so as to ascertain the maximum picture size to post to prevent scrolling. Not being able to see other people's monitors (I can only see mine, which never gets scroll bars), I had no idea how big pictures can get before it becomes a problem.
-
I posted in pique, and you have my apologies for any offense.
I believe my point still stands, though.
-
I never have to scroll since getting a modern monitor. When discussing picture sizes a few months ago I was told I was behind the times because my old-fashioned monitor couldn't show an 800 pixel-wide image on the LAF without there being a scroll bar. So I got a new monitor.
I concur. Modern monitors do wonders for avoiding the scroll-bar. However if the internet browser isn't full screen I need to use the scroller.
Of course what Froggy has suggested would be useful for those who still see these bars.
-
The question still remains; can anything be done about it? Presumably the Prof reads these "About Forum" posts.
-
The question still remains; can anything be done about it? Presumably the Prof reads these "About Forum" posts.
Sure, the Prof did read it and will check it. He is a bit busy at the moment, almost on the way to airport. More later, maybe first tomorrow. Please be patient.
-
Sure, the Prof did read it and will check it. He is a bit busy at the moment, almost on the way to airport. More later, maybe first tomorrow. Please be patient.
I can be patient. Thanks.
-
Sure, the Prof did read it and will check it. He is a bit busy at the moment, almost on the way to airport. More later, maybe first tomorrow. Please be patient.
I can be patient. Thanks.
Thanks. Now I'm in Germany and unfortunately still too busy. My family. Let me check the settings and the forum software next week as soon as I'm back in Russia again and I will get back to you with the results.
-
bad news, currently no way to change that. There is a mod for the SMF forums, for auto resizing of the big images, but it works only with the new beta version of the software. And I don't want to go with a beta version. So one day we will have a solution but unfortunately not today.
You could try to use to switch off the left panel of the forum using the button on the top (see attachment) while looking at the pics, that would help to see more.
-
Thanks for looking into it. I hope you'll keep the problem in mind, should it become possible to fix it in the future.
-
I've found a possibility to reduce the size of showed pics. Now all the pics in the new posts/topics will be shown with max. resolution of 800. It's not a final solution but I think it makes looking at the pics a bit easier.
If you wish to see the "full" version of such "resized" images, you just need to click on it, it will pop up in a new window.
for example one of the Will Bailie's beautiful Tibet pics from his topic - http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=12326.0
(http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x96/WillBailie/Hiking/Nepal%20July%2009/Nepal105.jpg)
-
It shows the original pics, only stretched to 800px, right? It kinda works, but the full scale pics are still loaded every time. Also, normal vertical page scrolling slows down when there are stretched images in sight.
However, properly downscaled display copies would require storing the temporary image somewhere. I don't know if that's feasible at all.
Does this system break manually set url tags? On most forums I prefer doing my own [ur=full.jpg][im]small.jpg[/im][/ur] linking. Some of these auto-linkers break it, even if the carefully created small.jpg would fit nicely.
Of course, I could test it myself...
There's hardly any silver bullet to these problems. The easiest solution would be doing nothing at all, but there are always less technical people who can't quite figure out why posting a 3000px image is a bad idea and how to circumvent it. The second best solution might be detecting if the pic is "large" and whether it already has url-tags around. Then only resize/link the plain large ones. That probably takes a bit of coding, though.
I'm rambling.
-
It shows the original pics, only stretched to 800px, right?
exactly.