Poll: Photos/Thumbnails/Links

[oftheherd]

If I understand correctly, thumbnails have to be it. As many have mentioned, all they have is dialup. It is also all they can get, either they can't afford DLS or Cable, or it isn't available to them.

They shouldn't have to put up with imposed downloads that allow you to brew coffee and read unix manuals, twice.

The rest of us with our speed can absorb any other inconvenience.

 

[Bertram2]

bertram, in german mozilla 1.5:

Extras -> Einstellungen -> Tabs -> Links, die das öffnen in einem neuen Fenster erzwingen -> in einem neuen Tab aktivieren.

Volker,
I use Firefox V 0.9.3, English, different set up menues. Thanks anyway,
bertram

 

[Socke]

Volker,
I use Firefox V 0.9.3, English, different set up menues. Thanks anyway,
bertram

Sorry, I meant to say Firefox, mozilla is so deep into my brain that I can't adjust to the real name 🙂

You should update as soon as possible to a current version, even Firefox isn't free from bugs and potential security holes.

 

[Socke]

If I understand correctly, thumbnails have to be it. As many have mentioned, all they have is dialup. It is also all they can get, either they can't afford DLS or Cable, or it isn't available to them.

They shouldn't have to put up with imposed downloads that allow you to brew coffee and read unix manuals, twice.

The rest of us with our speed can absorb any other inconvenience.

Yes, but those on slow lines CAN set an option in the User CP NOT to download inline images and get clickable links instead.

But if the majority wants thumbnails only, so be it.

 

[Ken Ford]

The difficulty with clickable links instead of thumbs is that dialup users must click the link to see if its a picture they want to view!

 

[RayPA]

the one (only) thing interesting about the links was the click count that was included alongside the link.




🙂

 

[sf]

This seems painfully obvious. . . . but for the last option, none of the others even make sense.

 

[pvdhaar]

IMO, there's no advantage to using links to speed up things. You'd have to click on them anyway to see what's in there. It'd be worse than inline full size pictures. So, thumbnails it is..

Apart from the performance side of things, there's a decided visual plus to seeing thumbnails first. The abstraction they provide often shows compositional characteristics much better/earlier than full size images. They often provide a clue about how to best 'read a picture'..

 

[Rich Silfver]

IMO, there's no advantage to using links to speed up things. You'd have to click on them anyway to see what's in there. It'd be worse than inline full size pictures. So, thumbnails it is..

As much as I hate both links and thumbnails - I think the reasoning behind why links would be faster is when you RETURN to a thread where you have viewed all but the last/latest posts. That way you only open those and the rest are just quickly loaded links.

Me, I want the photos displayed full frame all the time and darn, I'd love for that to be an option in your settings - that way everyone would get their way 🙂

 

[sf]

OK, Rich. If we displayed all the images "full frame all the time", it would be one highly difficult gallery page to navigate. One would have to be scrolling like a mad man, and god help people with small monitors or old mice with sketchy balls. Man that sounds funny. . .

Full frame all the time would be a UI nightmare. Like a sports car with one gear and brakes that are either ON or OFF.

 

[Rich Silfver]

OK, Rich. If we displayed all the images "full frame all the time", it would be one highly difficult gallery page to navigate. One would have to be scrolling like a mad man, and god help people with small monitors or old mice with sketchy balls. Man that sounds funny. . .

Full frame all the time would be a UI nightmare. Like a sports car with one gear and brakes that are either ON or OFF.

"A highly difficult gallery page to navigate"

Well, you scroll up....or down....
Your user settings allow you to set how many threads per page and the software is clever enough to bring you to the 'latest' you've read.
Not sure I understand the concern.

"God help people with small monitors"
You don't have to display all photos within one screen....
Same answer as above.

"Full frame all the time would be a UI nightmare"
Because...? Do you ever view photo threads on pnet or ANY other forums that allows full photos to be displayed? I do..and I am able to..scroll...up...and....down.....

I must be missing the point. Sorry.

There's a gazillion photo threads on pnet, as an example, with full photos displayed in them (here is an example: Link) and I can't see any problem with it neither from a UI or any other perspetive......

 

[camera chipmunk]

I prefer thumbnails.

 

[Doug]

I've encountered large photos embedded in a thread such that I have to scroll around to see the various parts of it. This is so unwieldy I will (if motivated) download the photo, bring it into my editing software and view it at reduced scale, just so that I can assimilate the entire composition without scrolling. Large in-thread graphics also widen the text in all messages, making it necessary to scroll back and forth just to read each comment! Not nice....

Photo.net limits uploaded pics to less than 512 pixels wide and under 100k filesize, if I recall, and this helps photo-laden threads open reasonably quickly and not take up too much screen real estate.

 

[back alley]

and lots of the guys at pnet ignore the rules and upload beyond the posted limits.

i noticed you included a link in one of your posts here rich...😉

joe

 

[ch1]

Let's keep in perspective that this is not a question of whether you are "with it" tech-wise.

Full frame pics are a PITA to thos of us who use laptops!

On my W/NW Wheels thread this evening I first missed part of Todd's post becaause I thought it was already done loading.

He loaded full pics and I responded to the partial load!

Since all of his pics were great my praise was easily transferrable!

But it would have been nice if I'd just seen a "thumbnail" posting first off w/o wondering if I'd seen all the pics!

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

thumbnails ... faster than waiting for the imbedded photos to all load

 

[nwcanonman]

Dial up is the only option for some folks. I don't think we should abandon them because clicking on a thumbnail is too troublesome for others.

A word of caution: everyone must keep in mind that for the dial up users, viewing full size images in threads will be a much more significant problem than it is for those who dislike having to click on thumbnails to view the images.

I don't think it would be fair to decide this by a simple majority (50% +1) since the outcome will have a much greater effect on some people than others.

.............................................
Frank,
Thanks, some of us would rather spend our hard-earned $ on film/gear than waste it on a faster connection speed. That and I'm just a cheap bastard 😛

 

[Socke]

.............................................
Frank,
Thanks, some of us would rather spend our hard-earned $ on film/gear than waste it on a faster connection speed. That and I'm just a cheap bastard 😛

Luckily this is not the case here. An unlimited 1000/1500 Kbit/s DSL line can be had for around 30 Euros a month.

Since you need a 20 Euro/month phone line to use a dial-up conection this leaves you with 10 Euro to spend on internet access.
So a modem user here has some 17 hours of slow internet access and spends the same I do for my 1000/1500 which is up some 10h a day.

OTOH, as I stated above, in some rural places a DSL line might not be available.

 

[nwcanonman]

Socke,
Here, in my part of the USA, the average DSL is close to $50usd a month. Then the home phone line is close to $30usd extra (with no long distance or taxes added).
But my little Netzero dial-up is only $9.95 monthly, so I'm staying very happy and cheap
Does that help explain why I also drive a 1980 Toyota pickup? It's paid for and keeps running. 😀