Please learn to thumbnail images
Posted: 2017-01-08 00:22
Inspired by another thread, this post seeks to encourage people who post graphics to embed thumbnails of these images in their posting, and not the full screen renderings.
The reasons are simple:
1) Not everyone has unlimited bandwidth. If you do, then bully for you, but lots of folks are saddled with data limits, or pay per byte transferred. Thumbnails routinely decrease total image size by 30%-40% (sometimes more).
2) Not everyone has high-speed data. Once again, it's great if you are using the latest in fiber optic technology, but large swaths of users in less populated areas are limited to what is essentially dialup speed.
I don't know if it's still true, but it used to be that the single best predictor of user bailout was load time. If you're the OP, do you really want to encourage potential responders to bail on your post simply because they got tired of waiting for your piggish screenshot(s) to load?
3) On the server side, bandwidth costs money. I don't know the details of FDN's hosting, nor do I care. But the fact that users aren't asked to pay the costs of keeping this forum online means that some small measure of respect and gratitude is due to whoever is paying the bill.
4) Far too often, the embedded graphics simply are not all that informative. One recent thread showed two fullscreen images that differed only in the contents of a single drop-down: 30-x-30 pixels on a ~640-x-480 image. (Worse, that difference didn't illuminate the problem/issue in the slightest.)
5) Every image hosting site I'm aware of offers the option of thumbnailing the image during upload anyway. So it's not like clicking the "thumbmail this image" box is an undue burden on the poster. And the image hosting sites invariably offer a "thumbnail link," which allows posters to provide easy, one-click access to the full image in the rare cases when that's actually necessary.
(Edited for clarity)
The reasons are simple:
1) Not everyone has unlimited bandwidth. If you do, then bully for you, but lots of folks are saddled with data limits, or pay per byte transferred. Thumbnails routinely decrease total image size by 30%-40% (sometimes more).
2) Not everyone has high-speed data. Once again, it's great if you are using the latest in fiber optic technology, but large swaths of users in less populated areas are limited to what is essentially dialup speed.
I don't know if it's still true, but it used to be that the single best predictor of user bailout was load time. If you're the OP, do you really want to encourage potential responders to bail on your post simply because they got tired of waiting for your piggish screenshot(s) to load?
3) On the server side, bandwidth costs money. I don't know the details of FDN's hosting, nor do I care. But the fact that users aren't asked to pay the costs of keeping this forum online means that some small measure of respect and gratitude is due to whoever is paying the bill.
4) Far too often, the embedded graphics simply are not all that informative. One recent thread showed two fullscreen images that differed only in the contents of a single drop-down: 30-x-30 pixels on a ~640-x-480 image. (Worse, that difference didn't illuminate the problem/issue in the slightest.)
5) Every image hosting site I'm aware of offers the option of thumbnailing the image during upload anyway. So it's not like clicking the "thumbmail this image" box is an undue burden on the poster. And the image hosting sites invariably offer a "thumbnail link," which allows posters to provide easy, one-click access to the full image in the rare cases when that's actually necessary.
(Edited for clarity)