Association Forum - Forum Mechanics and considerations

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

General Sailing Forum

Forum Mechanics and considerations

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Member Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Initially Posted - 01/30/2005 : 13:39:45

Some of this materiel has been covered before and some is new.

A number of post recently have included url's or pictures that expand the window requiring that all of the thread need slide bar use to read...this is a known issue and now having read this post, you also know and it is inconsiderate for those who know to do so.

Pictures should be limited to 640 pixels width... if a resizer is needed, I like [url="http://www.mihov.com/eng/ir.html"]Mihov resizer[/url] as it easily allows dialing in the pixel width size and will easily do batch resizing of everything in a dirctory.

url's can be inserted by using promp rather than basic Format Mode... this names the url (better anyway) rather than giving the often long and screen expanding actual url. That raises the issue of the default Format Mode, I would prefer the default format mode be Prompt rather than Basic... as this always requires extra key strokes and is preferred by me for several reasons...

<ul><li>It solves the problem of having to paste between the code designators</li><li>It saves the problem of dealing with more than three items in a bullet</li><li>it would reduce the ocurrances of a long url</li><li>It names the url for better understanding of what it is</li><li> It makes pasting in text from another editor easier </li></ul>

No big deal unless the majority also feel this way and it can be changed.

A really disconcerting feature is that all editor insertions default to the end of the document rather than at the curser and the pain of having to always cut n paste to where they are wanted. I've noted that not to be the case on the Snitz forum so Spike should be able to fix this with a settup change or an upgraded version of the forum software.

Lets continue to hope for a solution to the sizing issue but until it can, lets be considerate...

Arlyn C-250 W/B #224

N/E Texas and Great Lakes
Arlyn's Sailing Site

Edited by - on

Leon Sisson
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1893 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 17:19:38

Hear! Hear! I agree!

If you aren't able to resize, or want to post a photo larger than 640 pixels wide, then post a link to the location of the photo, as Arlyn has described above for posting URLs.

And yes, I'be been guilty of posting images up to 800 pixels across in the past. I just wasn't sure where to draw the line. 640 max width is fine with me.

-- Leon Sisson

Edited by - on

existentialsailor
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1180 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 17:25:06

Doesn't your screen resolution have an effect on this?

Edited by - on

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 21:24:26

Not me.
I will not resize to a paltry and out of date 640x480. I cannot imagine anyone with a reasonable computer having an outdated 14" monitor. The average home computer resolution is the 17" 800x600. I almost never post a picture larger than 10" wide @ 72dpi, which is the screen width @ 800x600. (Most people have monitors set to 1024x768) The margin has no valuable info and is not as important as having all available space for a picture that provides information to forum users. A little scroll gets the margin out of view and fills the screen with picture.
This harkens back to the dial-up issue which is also an example of people trying to limit the quality of posts on this forum. Sorry guys but dial-up and 640x480 are not reasonable baselines.

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 21:51:43

Frank, I have a 19 inch monitor and I wear glasses fit especially for and only for computer viewing and I tried the 1024 setting for several months and almost always had to use control mouse wheel to resize the text to read it...but that only resizes text and not the aplication software which was always hard to read.

I've thrown the towel in and gone back to 800 pixel width. With the Snitz application window, 800 pixel screen resolution leaves 640 pixels of picture before the slide bar must be used.

Use whatever you prefer... I don't have to read your post.

Edited by - on

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 22:13:11

Freedom is a beautiful thing.
Thanks for being so considerate of those who do not agree with you.

Edited by - on

matsche
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
280 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 22:51:23

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Arlyn Stewart
 Pictures should be limited to 640 pixels width...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You've been reading my mind! There's nothing more irratating than having to scroll horizontally back and forth to read the postings because of an oversized picture in one. And there IS valuable info in the margins, like the name of the guy/gal doing the posting. I agree that there are times when a bigger picture is needed to show certain detail, but why not just link it in? It's not hard to do.

Frank: Sorry to disagree with you, but 640x480 images are not antiquated and are, in fact, common practice in most professional web sites to avoid this very problem.

Edited by - matsche on 01/30/2005 22:56:30

lcharlot
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Antigua and Barbuda
1301 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 00:38:24

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by matsche
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Arlyn Stewart
 Pictures should be limited to 640 pixels width...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Frank: Sorry to disagree with you, but 640x480 images are not antiquated...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

For a CADD operator like me, "real estate", meaning maximum screen resolution, is the holy grail. I run 1600 x 1200, both at work and on my home machine, that being the maximum our 5-year-old (obsolete) video cards and old 19" and 21" monitors can support. At 1600 x 1200, a 640 x 480 photo is the size of a postage stamp! I can't believe anyone is atill running VGA resolution! The last year that video cards were even made with VGA as the maximum resolution must be at least 13 years ago. Not many computers that old will even boot up anymore, considering that few hard drives last more than 7 or 8 years. Even 1024 x 768, which is the maximum that many laptops can produce, seems woefully inadequate. I can't wait for new equipment at work, the current front-line video cards and monitors for CADD and GIS applications run 2000 x 1600 or better. If you want to increase your screen resolution but the text and icons are then too small, just make them larger in the Desktop Settings window under the "Appearance" tab. Are you people who are running 640 x 480 still using those Flintstones era green and amber 12" monochrome monitors, by chance?

Edited by - on

MattL
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
990 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 02:09:50

Shoot Larry,
I'm using my dads old osborn, with a 4" display.

Edited by - on

matsche
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
280 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 06:48:08

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by lcharlot
 For a CADD operator like me, "real estate", meaning maximum screen resolution, is the holy grail. I run 1600 x 1200, both at work and on my home machine, that being the maximum our 5-year-old (obsolete) video cards and old 19" and 21" monitors can support. At 1600 x 1200, a 640 x 480 photo is the size of a postage stamp! I can't believe anyone is atill running VGA resolution! The last year that video cards were even made with VGA as the maximum resolution must be at least 13 years ago. Not many computers that old will even boot up anymore, considering that few hard drives last more than 7 or 8 years. Even 1024 x 768, which is the maximum that many laptops can produce, seems woefully inadequate. I can't wait for new equipment at work, the current front-line video cards and monitors for CADD and GIS applications run 2000 x 1600 or better. If you want to increase your screen resolution but the text and icons are then too small, just make them larger in the Desktop Settings window under the "Appearance" tab. Are you people who are running 640 x 480 still using those Flintstones era green and amber 12" monochrome monitors, by chance?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No one's talking about using 640 x 480 screen resolutions. The majority of folks these days use 800 x 600. That may seem woefully inadequate to you, but not everybody's using CAD. The problem with posting a picture that's 800 x 600 is that you have to add it to the web margin which on this site is (I'm guessing) somewhere between 100-200 pixels. That means, for most of us, having to scroll left and right to see the margin and the picture and affects every posting above and below it. That means that you now cannot read a posting and see who posted it at the same time without scrolling horizontally. A minor inconvenience, I'll grant you, but is it really that much of an imposition to limit the size of picture posted directly to the thread?

Edited by - on

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 07:53:15

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by matsche

Frank: Sorry to disagree with you, but 640x480 images are not antiquated and are, in fact, common practice in most professional web sites to avoid this very problem.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Back in the day that was true. It is amazing how time is passing. Most 17" TFT panel monitors have 1024 as their natural resolution, (and pity the fool who doesn't run his LCD at the natural res). Have you tried to buy a CRT lately? Apple's smallest display is now 20" @ 1680x1050 the big boy is 30" @ 2560x1600. Apple no longer sells the old aspect ratio displays and only sells "Cinema" displays.

800x600 is now the standard as evidenced by:
irs.gov (the gold standard for website design)
NBC.com
cbs,com
ebay.com
pizzahut.com
mac.com (the platinum standard!!)
Microsoft.com
Sailnet.com
Yachtworld.com

Some have already moved to the emerging standard of 1024x768
FOX.com
KSN.com (local station)

I post pictures three ways:
First and most common is a max size of 10" wide from my cox.net host storage area. I always have them show up in the thread, I feel I have sized them for the thread.
Second is a URL link to a picture on my .mac pages. They are a bit larger and auto sized by the Apple photo software that integrates my computer with the .mac site.
Third and least common is to have one of those .mac pictures show up in the thread. I only do that if the thread is directed at a newbie and I am trying to make the answer the point of the thread rather than demonstrate the linking capacity of SNITZ.

If I seem a bit defensive it is because I obviously post more technical pictures than anyone else and it represents my honest effort to add as much value to this wonderful forum as possible. The members of this forum are an amazing collection of truly nice people trying to help each other and I appreciate every post that is made.

Edited by - on

matsche
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
280 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 08:24:01

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by fhopper@mac.com
 
800x600 is now the standard as evidenced by:
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You're exactly right. 800x600 is the screen resolution that web developers code to. The problem is that on this site, we have a left hand margin of about 100 pixels that when added to a 800 pixel wide image, gives you a total requirement of 900 pixels. Thus, the need for horizontal scrolling on an 800 pixel wide screen.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by fhopper@mac.com
 
If I seem a bit defensive it is because I obviously post more technical pictures than anyone else and it represents my honest effort to add as much value to this wonderful forum as possible. The members of this forum are an amazing collection of truly nice people trying to help each other and I appreciate every post that is made.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well said. And just to be clear, I do look at your pictures, read your posts and admire the work you've done on your boat. Please don't think otherwise.

Edited by - on

frankr
Captain

Members Avatar

256 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 08:38:05

Mr. Hopper - consider yourself blessed with high speed access. Where I live DSL, cable and ISDN are either not available or out of range price wise. Dial up is the norm and speed limited to 32000 on a good day and usually 28800. Having to painfully watch oversized pictures load greatly lowers ones enjoyment of this forum. Get real - just because you got it don't assume everyone else does. I appreciate your posts and info - but be kind to us out here in the 3rd world of technology land.

Edited by - on

tinob
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1883 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 09:05:27

KISS... If I have to scroll h/z I don't read the post. It's not worth the inconvenience.

Seems to me that if a person has something really significant to share they'll post it in the most widely used/available/facile format.

Val on the hard DAGNABIT

Edited by - on

Sloop Smitten
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1181 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 11:19:35

Based on the responses I would consider Arlyn's request a good, and reasonable, suggestion unless it means reconfiguring your system or having to go through a lengthy photo editing process. Everyone should make there own decision whether to follow along or not. Obviously there are stong feelings on each side. I know if I pull up a thread thats so wide I have to scroll horizontally I just go to the next thread unless it is of great importance to me. It's like trying to read a newspaper article that changes pages every sentence.

Edited by - on

Ray Seitz
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
416 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 12:13:53

I do not and will not read any discussion that I have to scroll left/right. I thought those who posted that way were not aware of what they were doing.

Edited by - on

existentialsailor
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1180 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 13:14:33

Those of you who have such a problem with horizontal scrolling must have great difficulty with PDF files as well, especially the ones formatted like a newspaper column. I'm really surprised to see this generate so much disagreement. Even if everyone did follow Arlyn's suggestion, that would mean that I (and I imagine others) would be right clicking and zooming in on every picture because they would be too small to see, (I think someone mentioned postage stamp). Unless the poster has handled the down sizing correctly, the quality suffers, sometime to the point of making the picture useless when zoomed.
To those who are stuck with slow connection speeds, set you browser not to display images and then if a thread warrants the download of a picture, you can chose to do so. To expect everyone to cater to the slowest speed out there isn't very realistic either.
So basically, there is no way to satisfy everyone on this issue.

Edited by - on

JimB517
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
3285 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 19:33:24

I think it is only good "netiquite" to be considerate of those with less bandwidth or screen resolution.

"Best practices" on this forum should be:

(1) post moderate sized thumbnail images with links to websites for more

(2) Adherance to this policy is 100% voluntary and posters may have valid reasons for exceptions, like (a) showing a highly detailed, high resolution photo of a tech tip to answer some individual's question, or (b) digital photo newbie does not know how to make thumbnails or does not have time.

(3) I'll talk to Spike about a couple of SNITZ issues

(a) change the default for posting URLs
(b) increase the default timeout for searches
(c) is it time to make an archive and move some of the threads? [note to self - I believe we are waiting for the new forum tech tip editors to step up and move some old threads to tech tip status]
(d) when do we next want to do a SNITZ upgrade? Members take note - this takes a couple of days. Forum will be DOWN. We did it over Christmas once. Maybe Superbowl Sunday would be a good choice.
(e) can the default insert place (URL or IMG) be changed from the end to the current cursor location?

(4) non sailing threads (like this one) should have "non-sailing" in the title. This thread could have been in the Members or (better yet) Officers/Staff section!

(5) Any member (Officer, staff, or regular member) who objects to a thread should email me or Spike, explain their reasons, and we'll delete it.


Adherance to this policy is 100% voluntary We've never banned anyone (yet) not even McGreggor owners!

Edited by - on

tinob
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1883 Posts

Response Posted - 02/01/2005 : 10:28:52

And then there are those of us who remember gaslights, dirt roads and model"T's", and are barely holding on by our fingernails trying to share in the wonders of this great forum. To complicate it unnecessarily is tantamount to age discrimination

So I'll repeat my opinion, Keep It Simple Sailors

Val on the hard DAGNABIT

Edited by - on

Ben - FL
Admiral

Members Avatar

880 Posts

Response Posted - 02/02/2005 : 17:11:19

I still have my old Commodore 64 with 300 baud modem cartridge and 5-1/2 in. floppy (we would double side them ourselves by using a hole punch!)

Edited by - on

tinob
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1883 Posts

Response Posted - 02/03/2005 : 09:38:19

That's a laugh Ben I thought I had the last 64 around ( a Vic also }and a cache of cartriges to boot. My wife was unbeatable in a game of "TRASHMAN".

Val on the hard DAGNABIT

Edited by - on

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.