Be Excellent To Each Other

The current maximum size of an embedded image is 980x1200 pixels.

Should I change them?

1024 would be a more logical horizontal size. Any larger would cause people on small screens to have issues.

I voted "same" because 1024 is barely any larger.

[edit] BTW do you need any money for heroin server fees at the moment? Do say as BEEX shouldn't be costing you a bean.

Where's the obligatory comedy option that means "I don't really care"

Because I'll choose that one.

Obv the file size should come into play, just in case some silly (billy - Ed) posts pictures that are several meg in size leaving anyone not on fibre broadband looking at an image that is slowly loading like an 8 bit loading screen. EXCEPT SLOWER.

Yeah, just make it unlimited. Nobody is out to abuse it, and it's really annoying having to resize stuff on the odd occasion I bother to post a picture.

I can't say I've had any real issues with the ways things are right now, so I voted "same".

You'd only have issues with it if you posted images on the board, otherwise it'd make absolutely no difference to you whatsoever.

1024 - a few pixels for browser chrome - a few more for padding - a lot more for the width of the author panel.


Or look at the board, of course.
Allow me to force a, say, 1600x300px image into the next post.


Just paste the image url into the 'attach file' box and the forum will do it for you.

So basically.......

You can have bigger pictures but it will foul everything up.

What was the point of this poll again?

Scrolling isn't exactly the end of the world. But meh.

I voted for bigger but not my much just raise it to 1024, means we can embed a larger size of flickr pictures than 640 wide. Don't see any point in a height limit either really.

Smalller... I like it when things are flush and easily kept in line. Also the internet's not going to be here forever, we don't want to wear it out too soon with large pictures.

Can't you just place big pictures behind some form of "spoiler" tag auto-magically?

I think most people only link large files when sharing their photographs. Many people on here use Flickr to share their pictures, especially in the photography thread where perhaps people wish to convey the most detail.

The standard widths of pictures on Flickr seem to be 240, 500, 640, 1024 and the original width. I do not have a problem sharing at the 500px or 640px width, but people who are more keen on their photography and have the ability to capture finer detail may wish for the 1024px option?

You can make an image into a link, so there's no reason not to embed a 640px version and have it click through to a larger one.

Overtly large elements of any kind on a web site are annoying.

Fucking DavPaz.

Look! He quoted!

All grown up!

especially on a wee screen or non-maximized window.

Plus, now that flickr have been fannying about again it's easier just to do it their way which makes the picture & title & shit all links.

Yes, I think Malabar has a good point.

What's the minimum expected screen res now? 1024x768? or has it crept up to a 720p-like res due to widescreen laptops?

Notebooks and mobile devices have kept it low. I still generally develop things at 960px or so if I go for a fixed-width layout.

edit: you can do pretty clever things with interface scalability in pure CSS these days for modern browsers. It opens up a lot of possibilities for more liquid layouts.

I say, keep it as is. We're all grown ups here.

Except Cookie

And Malabumfluff.

I was worried about hard coding my site to 960 pixels wide, but then I read that only a low amount of people still use 800 x 600. Number of visitors so far with that resolution: zero.

Check again!

Haha.