Printable View
Just want to say the site is looking awesome :D
One thing I don't like is the the boards logo, just doesn't look crisp at all but thats just being picky ;)
Also on the user profiles it lists car details and about me sections, but most of it is the same, any reason for this?
Marcus,
Yeah, the boards, etc, logo's were lifted from the cached site, I now have the originals, I could make better versions of them. Note though that the font is supposed to have that jagged edge, but, on the jpeg's I've used the white background is not 100%, maybe that's what your refering too ?
Re profile sections, only some details are copied across once you've padded out all the 'car' options ;)
I'm not sure why it copies any of them across really, it has been written that way, I can ofcourse hack it out if it gets annoying.
The text itself looks goodQuote:
Originally Posted by Scoff
https://rtoc.org/images/boards.jpg
It's just the sort of haze around it all just needs making opaque (sp) around the edges of the text and should sort it :D
Ah I see, will get some of the fields updated then on my now in pieces clio :cry:
That haze would be the less than white white.
We had a problem with some less that black black too :)
Fair point, I just didn't think anyone would pick me up on it :D
I used MS paint to make the jpeg's from the bmp's that the cached site wanted to save as (wierd, I thought it would have saved as .gif).
Gordon sent me the original .gif buttons, Its on my list of things to do now.
I am like a woman picking up the smallest of things :sad2:;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoff
Also on the gallery it doesn't state the maximum dimension size for an image or what it will be resized to automatically :)
It doesn't, your right, because it doesn't resize ;) instead files are limited, currently 3Mb which is probably much too big, I should set an image size. I set 900 x 675 for image attachments in post, maybe I could set the same in the albums.
Do you think thats big enough ?
Larger :)
For those of use with plenty of pixels who like to see the details:)
Maybe 1920 x1200?
Does it matter all that much, the size is limited so as far as HD space goes it doesn't. Those people viewing photos on a wrist watch will always have a problem.
But too large will over expand the screen if your resolution is less than that (which will be most people I would think ?)
Maybe 1200 x 900 ?
Exactly, plus it'll take an eternity to load the album if there's several of those size pic's within. I'd personally limit it to circa 1024 x 768.
talking about profile pictures not thread pic size (I was anyway). The latter are limited already.
Our server is in the UK and seems pretty fast. We'll find out only when we have a lot more users uploading, etc, at once.
But there are apparently 35 other users on the VPS, they can each sub sell the other users.
Our new VPS is apparently 25 other users.
I can set different limits.
I've set the boards so that if you attach an image it posts up a thumbail. You click on it and you get a (max) 900x675 pixle image, which I think is fine for attachments, pics of days out, etc.
If you really want a high res image then the profile albums section is for that, I've gone for 1200x for now, which I still think might be a bit big for some monitors, but I guess people are slowly upgrading to bigger screens and stuff.
Ah, but..
in FireFox, it auto resizes, doesn't it? I also have some photo viewers which do resize.
And then you can click to full size and move around the image to see the small stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoff
Maybe, but for all the sheep that use IE it will not re-size.
(says me who uses IE but only because FF is god awfull slow in comparison. Safari seems like a good option, but, it isn't so compatable with some of the pages I need to use :( I think once the bulk of this site is done I'm going to have a do at running linux on the main PC, fed up of windows and its silly stupid errors, crashings, pointless graphical ****e that really serves no purpose other than to slow the machine and annoy me)
I was presuming that people have fast download these days.
Of course those in a capped period or, surley not, on dial up, will experience a delay.
How many of those are there? Is it worth scaling down just for those few?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mart
Even on a fast connection a 1900x image will take sometimes 5 seconds to DL, and then you can't see it all in IE so becomes doubly frustrating.
On the gallery can you not set it so it has the larger version if you click on it? So say have 1024x768 as the normal but if someone has uploaded a larger one that can be clicked on to show that?
On the forums themselves I would go smaller than that for the auto resize probably a max width of about 600 as you will be able to click on it to see the larger version anyway :)
Just my opinion anyway :)
Marcus,
The albums bit doesn't do a resize, its just one size option, and I don't want to go too big because we have to think about HDD space (even on the bigger VPS we have something like 7Gb free, so not mahoosive)
Re the pictures in threads, the thumbails are tiny, 150x100 I think, the same size as the thumbnails on the home page, news items, etc. That way you can upload 10 pics and other people can browse them easilly. :)
I would go for 1024x768 then as thats the auto resize option thats available in XP and might be what people use beforehand, also means pics will be down to less than 100k in size I imagine :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoff
Thumbnails on the posts sounds spot on, will have a play with that later :D
The post attachments has the size as 900x675 so that might be better being 1024x768 maybe?
I see what you mean now, I could up the post attach to 1024x then :)