|
|
Post by hmca on May 20, 2015 0:35:37 GMT
Hi All,
If you could take a minute we could use some feedback regarding the IOW Announcement. The images have been linked to that thread using cubeupload. I would like to know if you are finding those images slow to load on your computer?
Thanks in advance for helping us to evaluate how smoothly things are working/ or not working.
Your feedback is important to us.
Thanks,
Helen
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on May 20, 2015 1:39:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on May 20, 2015 1:44:03 GMT
One more.....  C |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 2:01:03 GMT
Helen,
I like A best, any bigger would be too much and C is far too small.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sydney on May 20, 2015 2:07:33 GMT
I like A because I can practically smell the flowers  .
All of the images opened up without any delay |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 2:16:20 GMT
I like C the best. A is too big initially. For me it's like being hit in the face with the image. Lucky it wasn't a photo of a brick . When I click C, it displays the enlarged image in A anyway. So with C the visitor has the choice to view the enlargement or not. Coming from a web site development background, I would recommend giving visitors the option to view an enlarged photo if they choose to, rather than impose a choice on them. One of the first things I learnt in web site development is that one of quickest ways to loose visitors to a web site is to impose features/functions they don't like or want. Always give the visitor a choice where possible. Just my 2c worth |
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on May 20, 2015 2:28:42 GMT
It all depends on the size of the original image. The "A" option seems fine to me. However, if your image is 1200 pixels or more on the longest size, "A" is going to be huge. Anything 1000 px and under will look just fine.
I don't mind the "C" option, the thumbnail.
EDIT: There is no slowing down on my computer to load these images (using any one of the options). But, then, my Internet connection is pretty fast. It would be nice to get some feedback from those with not so fast Internet connection. |
|
|
|
Post by hmca on May 20, 2015 3:02:27 GMT
Thank for your input Simone, Sydney, Dave and Sepiana. Dave, thanks for your input. You certainly make a valid point. I notice that you didn't comment on B. B might be a compromise at this point....not too big and not too small. Hope we can get some good feedback from other members.
|
|
rapata
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 246 
|
Post by rapata on May 20, 2015 3:11:12 GMT
I found they all opened in about the same time, I have a fast fiber optic connection here at home. B is my preference for the display size.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tpgettys on May 20, 2015 5:04:16 GMT
Helen, I like A best, any bigger would be too much and C is far too small. Ditto speed was not an issue. |
|
Madame
Established Forum Member
Posts: 504
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by Madame on May 20, 2015 5:47:16 GMT
Yes, I like A best. PE&m is about photo, and I think it's annoying to have to click to view the pictures how they are meant to be.
It's easier to "float" through the pictures.
If the text is more important, than it's more convenient with thumbnails.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 7:51:18 GMT
Thank for your input Simone, Sydney, Dave and Sepiana. Dave, thanks for your input. You certainly make a valid point. I notice that you didn't comment on B. B might be a compromise at this point....not too big and not too small. Hope we can get some good feedback from other members. Hi hmca, B is ok, but C is better for me. At the end of the day, it's not a big deal for me. If you are concerned about the speed of loading images into users' browsers, then in case you are not aware, the size of the image (bytes) plays an important part in the image's loading speed into visitors' browsers, especially for visitors on a slow Internet connection. I'm on a fast connection so all the images have loaded very quickly so far. For example, uploading a 5000px x 3000px image into a web page's image container that is styled to display an image at, say, 1000px width means the visitor's browser still downloads the entire 5000px x 3000px image and then resizes (interpolates) it down to 1000px. Browser resizing of images can be very slow. Resizing the image to 1000px before uploading it results in a very much smaller image file being downloaded by visitors and hence reducing the image load times into their browser. For displaying images on the web I normally set up .jpg files with at least 50% compression. My eyes can't detect any noticeable difference between a test .jpg at 50% compression or minimum compression when viewed on a computer screen. |
|
danudin
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 132 
|
Post by danudin on May 25, 2015 23:46:02 GMT
Hard to judge in this thread as two images "A" & "C" appear to be the same Cubeupload files (Just different sizes but Image "B" doesn't seem to have any connection to cubeupload and is just a straight image. Ron My initial difficulty lay with THIS Post, and the slowness persists. |
|
|
|
Post by hmca on May 26, 2015 3:16:33 GMT
Ron,
Being I used cubeupload for the IOW thread, that was the method I was testing in this thread. A was forum full-size, B was direct link and C was forum thumbnail. You can use whatever method you prefer for attaching your selections to your thread when it is your turn to judge.......postimage/ pixentral/ cubeupload, etc.
I am thinking the problem may have been that there were three images in that one post.
Helen
|
|
danudin
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 132
|
Post by danudin on May 26, 2015 21:30:53 GMT
I think my difficulty is that the system I use is old - Like me Helen!\Ron
|
|
.
