IMG tag width specifier request

[ddengster]

I'd like you to take a look at the images on both of these posts on hiveworkshop, and this post on tigsource for comparison.

I know hiveworkshop resizes images in forum posts based on the parent's window area, but would it be difficult to implement a width specifier in the IMG tag? It lets the creator resize images to their specifications.

Old Example: [IMG ] image url [/IMG]
Proposed Example:

 

[Ralle]

No. While this may help your use case it's not practical. This site is not fixed width and has to scale to very small sizes to work on smart phones. A fixed width image would destroy the smart phone experience, which is becoming more and more important every day. This would be a step backwards in website evolution.

 

[ddengster]

That's too bad
It would've been nice to control some aspect of image sizes, it need not be fixed width but some other control.

 

[Ralle]

Well, I'm afraid I'd need more of a thorough specification to deem whether it's possible.

 

[Chaosy]

I'd actually like this.

Do something like width="500px" and make it downscale if it remains too big on a screen.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Add both DPI value and relative sizing values.

DPI value is used for image formats without explicit DPI values. It scales an image up or down based on the DPI of the viewer's display and not pixel width. Important for accurate display of images on or from high pixel density displays such as some 4K displays. Images that are too wide are still resized with the current logic (smart phone friendly).

Relative sizing is either percent or decimal representing how much of the available horizontal width an image should (but does not have to) take up. Eg a value of 0.5 or 50% will make the image be half as wide as the text area. To prevent images being too small on smartphones a minimum width in distance of at least 1 inch (fat finger width) should exist which is implicitly applied and clamps relative resizing. One could specify some large image to 0.5 width and it will be placed on the same line next to another image of 0.5 size (if not clamped by minimum size) allowing for more post composing options. Relative resizing could also allow small images to be expanded, possibly as a separate flag.

DPI scaling is useful if one intends an image to be as close to a real size as possible. Eg if one has a 150-300 DPI diagram from a book which is meant to be physically small instead of filling the width of a forum post. It may still be shrunk down on smart phones but for big displays at least it will be reasonably size accurate.

Mostly people would want to use relative sizing. Using this one could display 2 or more WC3 screenshots on a single line independent of their source resolution with them still filling the lines. If one wants to emphasize a screenshot from a low resolution source one can also up scale it to fill the entire post width. The minimum width limit prevents one from unintentionally making images so small that one cannot press them on smart phones.

Another option might be image thumbnail support. Instead of using image tag, you use some other tag which places an image as a thumb nail into a post independent on its actual size. Useful if one wants to show a selection of high resolution screenshots for people to browse without placing them in hidden tags or having a very long post. Clicking the thumb nail will show the full scale image, similar to images currently.

 

[HappyCockroach]

No. While this may help your use case it's not practical. This site is not fixed width and has to scale to very small sizes to work on smart phones. A fixed width image would destroy the smart phone experience, which is becoming more and more important every day. This would be a step backwards in website evolution.

Wouldn't a "Max Width" parameter actually be helpful? It would never ruin the experience in any device (since it would permit images to be downscaled further), and it would help people reference images without having to do duplicates of them when the downscale is needed.

It could follow tags as [IMG=300]image_url[/IMG]. The value being the width limit. (What Chaosy said, actually, but in other terms xD)

 

[Ralle]

Currently all images are at max-width: 100%. I think that means that they are always at their maximum size unless scaled down to fit.