It's killing some usernames, and some pics just look awful.

I realize you're going for pages that don't scroll sideways, so why not just write a script of some sort that won't allow pictures bigger than a set pixel height and width to be displayed without being resized?

4/2/2002 9:40:32 PM

word

4/2/2002 10:58:40 PM

i think he fixed it. it looks different from an hour ago. Plus there was about a 5-10 minute period when this site was laggin

4/2/2002 11:06:23 PM

Side scrolling on TWW should NEVER happen, FOR ANY REASON. Its annoying. The page should be limited by the current width of the window, if thats possible.

4/4/2002 12:49:10 AM

but it's kinda annoying to have pictures cut off too.... if there was a way for the pics to be resized to fit, it would be great... but some are just so big that all you get is the left half of the picture...

4/4/2002 8:17:26 PM

I'd rather see just the left side than have all the text in 50 posts require side scrolling for EVERY LINE.

4/4/2002 8:48:00 PM

In internet explorer if you only specify a width value for the image, it is scaled automatically.

4/4/2002 11:13:29 PM

I agree, side scrooling sucks, but I'm sick of pictures being cut off. I think the best option is that if the picture is too big, a scaled down thumbnail gets placed instead. It woulndt be a tiny thumbnail, but big enough to see the picture well. The picture would then link to a fullsize of the image. Does this sound possible?

4/5/2002 3:25:52 PM

why not just resize the picture with the window?

4/6/2002 4:14:52 AM

I agree with InsaneMan... side scrolling is annoying as all

4/6/2002 5:10:34 AM

600 pixels is big enough to see clearly. Dont bitch that your pics arent big enough if they get scaled down.

4/6/2002 5:31:36 AM

LISTEN TO MY IDEA FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, ITS NOT A BAD ONE BY ANY MEANS.

4/7/2002 11:55:07 PM

IM I agree that you are correct. Side scrolling should never happen, but the current implementation of this idea is way off IMHO. No picture should ever be "cropped" in the manner that is currently employed. Scaling the pictures down is feasible, but this has to be done on the browser side (since the server doesn't know the browser's window size), requiring probably some sort of JavaScript to resize the picture using percentages (this is probably the easiest way out).

Jake, I agree with the philosophy of what you're doing, but I think there might be better ways of doing it. Maybe showing a thumbnail of the picture in the thread (that is say, 400 pixels wide) that is linked to a new page showing the actual picture itself (perhaps in a new window, showing the picture I link to in the photo gallery of the person whose picture is linked). Example: I post a picture of the world at night (see thread http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=42959) and the page shows a 400 pixel scaled-down version of the image, keeping the height proportional to the new 400 pixel thumbnail width. A user clicks on the picture, and up pops a new window showing the full picture located at photos/00000178.jpg. One of the niceties of this plan is that the 400 pixel number is arbitrary and does not change from picture to picture. If the picture is under 400 pixels wide, it remains at full size and is not linked to a photo gallery. If the picture is over 400 pixels, then it gets resized (server-side) with the HTML Anchor links inserted into the page code, and then sent to the user.

I think that plan is feasible, and certainly better than the current solution. I'd love to see it happen.

-bigginal

4/8/2002 9:46:28 AM

Resize the pictures so that the browser window will be <= 800 pixels wide, and if it is resized dont allow anything to the left or right of it (which somebody will do to piss us off).

4/8/2002 10:48:17 PM

CrazyJ, did you do something to prevent side scrolling? I havent seen any of it since you turned off the picture cropping.

4/13/2002 9:26:00 PM

They're back at it widening threads. Can you turn the width cutoff back on and leave it?

4/25/2002 12:37:11 AM

I like it how it is now.

-bigginal

4/25/2002 12:39:40 AM

or an option in the profile

4/25/2002 12:44:00 AM

Just quit whining about it. This is already the best damn message board I've seen.

4/25/2002 1:31:16 AM

I'm complaining because TWW is already set up to do that, but the option is turned off.

4/25/2002 7:25:17 PM

i suggested to jake a while back that any image over a certain size it should just add a height and width tag to the <IMG> tag to resize but jake seemed to think that wouldn't work. dunno why.

4/30/2002 8:58:23 PM

here's what he said:

Quote :

" Gizz, i would have to fetch the image (maybe from another server) for that to work. a fixed size wouldn't work. imagine a smiley (from another site or something) being scaled to 600x600. "

still doesn't make sence to me.

4/30/2002 9:01:34 PM