Can we have embedded pictures in threads please?

[sugo]

I have been to many many online forums for electronic devices. People can always post pictures freely. When they post a review, text and pictures can be inter-mixed together in one post. It is very pleasant to read and follow.

Not quite the same here. A review post with 12 embedded pictures means they will all get converted to hyperlinks within a few hours. After that when a member wants to read the review, s/he has to open 12 browser tabs or windows and try to painfully match up text and picture.

http://news.com.com/FCC+High-speed+conn ... 12123.html

It's year 2005. Given the huge user base on broadband and the target audience of this forum, is it still critical to sacrifice photo display capability?

While we should take low bandwidth of 56k modems into account, have we considered if many of them are actually willing to wait for a few more seconds to load postings with text and photos together? Text might be important, but picture can say a thousand words.

Sure people should still refrain from posting UXGA photos. Perhaps we can limit the picture size to say 800x600?

Thanks for your consideration.

[BillMorrow]

there is an "anything goes" confrence called etcetera that can be used..

and a "Pictures of your ThinkPad & desk setup" confrence..

HOWEVER, lets try this idea out..
if essential to the post, smaller pictures will be ok..
but these must be small enough so as to fit within the message area..

and only if the reader is warned in the subject line..

lets see how this works for a few weeks..

does that sound fair..?

[sugo]

Since message area varies with screen resolution, 640x480 photos will be maximum in order to fit XGA screens. I think that's good enough.

Putting warnings in thread title is great but one has no control over the title if s/he is just replying. If pictures in replies don't get automatically removed then it's fine.

Thanks Bill.

[JaneL]

>It's year 2005. Given the huge user base on broadband and the target audience of this forum, is it still critical to sacrifice photo display capability?
>

Biting tongue.

[JaneL]

>lets see how this works for a few weeks..
>

...

[leoblob]

Just one guy's opinion/experience...

I have (only) dial-up, and I prefer the links. I don't find it inconvenient to click on a link when I want to. But I do find it problematic when people have posted all sorts of pix and it takes forever to load. Maybe I need to just get with the 21st century...

If people really will limit the pix sizes to something reasonable, then I think that's a workable compromise. But I'm on another board (car-related), and sometimes people post pix that won't fit on my screen (running at 1280 x 1024). Threads with stuff like that in there, I don't even read.

... just my 2¢ worth...

[BillMorrow]

as i said above..

lets give it a try..
if anyone abuses it they will lose their feathers and will need to go sit in the corner..

640x480 sounds fine for a size parameter..

keep them germane to the subject..

and with a warning in the subject line..

[sugo]

Bill, if I am not the thread starter I don't think I can change the subject. Can I still post a reply with relevant small (<=VGA) picture?

[JaneL]

No, post a link instead.

[daeojkim]

Is it possible to set something in the user preference that would allow users to select whether pictures should be displayed or not?

This way, users with broadband can select to show pictures. Dial up users can set the preference so that only the link will be shown for pictures.

Is the feasible? I think if this indeed possible problem would be solved.