Forums » Suggestions & Development Discussion » Automatic link to resized images

Large images are resized to fit the template depending on the screen resolution with the width:95%; code in the CSS. This means if your screen is too small to fit the image in your char's template, it's automatically adjusted to be small enough to fit.

As useful as this is, it can be annoying. I want people to be able to see the full image, but it's kind of hard to get that done. Manually linking to the full sized image is a lot of unnecessary code and on sites with many images, also tedious.

I'm suggesting a few things to make this more easily customized:

1. Allow to manually set the height and width of the image myself with img height=x width=x like with youtube videos. If the image is too large for the template, I can force it to be like that anyway. I know my template will get 'broken' on smaller screens, but that's my choice. (Maybe include a warning on the BBC code page?)


2. Allow for a tag in the img tag (such as img* /img or img link=true /img) to denote that the image must be linked to the actual URL so that when it's resized, people can click it for a full version. (Maybe add a target=_blank per default into the converted HTML to make it open in a new window/tab?)


3. Same as 2, but instead of opening in a new window, open the image in a lightbox.

What image are you trying to post and where is it located?

I posted a fairly large picture of my character on his profile page and it wasn't resized. At least, not that I noticed.

It's an anonymous character. But, how big is the image and how big is your screen resolution? If you place a picture that is 2000 pixels wide, and your resolution is only 1024 pixels wide, it will be resized to fit your resolution. It's because of the CSS used to tag images with. width:95%; will ALWAYS reduce an image's size if it's too large for your resolution.

Edit: Also, I'm not talking about gallery images. Although those are also resized when too large (even on my giant resolution a large image of 1300 pixels wide is resized), I specifically mean the regular images that you implement with the IMG tag.

Edit2: Check this image. If you make your browser smaller, the image will get smaller too. Feel free to try it.

I see what you mean now, although that image is still smaller than my screen resolution (1680x1050) it resizes when I adjust Firefox. The picture I was talking about is much smaller than that too, it just takes up a significant amount of space on the profile and doesn't resize no matter what I do with the browser.

Hm. I checked the source code and it has the class="bbcode_img" tag in the HTML, which refers to the width:95%; bit in the CSS code. It may be too small in width per default so the code doesn't affect it, plus it's aligned to the right so the text wraps around it. Even on the smallest resolution, that image won't be too wide for the profile. The code specifically designates width, not height, since in height you just scroll down the page.

You sort of get used to the resizing after a while, unfortunately. I do a lot of blogging, and spend a lot of time on DeviantART, so my usual method is setting up the picture as a link to it's full size, like you said. Lightboxes annoy me, but they're handy if you don't want somebody to auto-jack your pictures. And I'm sort of OCD about layout so I don't think I could bring myself to "break the template" so to speak by having a picture or video that just suddenly ripped open a hole in the fabric of existence/edge of the table cell, it would just supremely bother me to have that on one of my sites.

I don't. :c I have two computers, a desktop with a HUUUUUGE resolution (1920*1080) and a netbook with a tiny resolution (1024*600). I switch a lot between the two depending on what I'm working on/doing, so the resizing gets on my nerves terribly. I want people with smaller resolutions to be able to see my characters' drawings at full size without having to put huge chunks of extra coding in it, that makes the widget difficult to sort through when you need to edit it. Since it auto-resizes, it would be nice to have an easier way to link to the full image.

Do note that all my suggestions would remain options, there's no enforcing anything...

If you're hosting it from photobucket, flickr, or imageshack, I honestly think that the easiest thing to do would to just include the [img]tag inside of a ]url[ tag set. As much as I'd personally love to see the ability to use html and php, I have to say that it would really open up a security risk for Kim. Another thing is that not everyone knows/wants to learn html - if it were optional, like you're suggesting, that would be awesome but it would open up the security holes, so it's going to be a catch 22 either way. One more thing to take into consideration is that only 3% of the computer community (that's ALL the os's, not just Win7/XP/etc, Mac, and linux distro's, there are more yo) has a resolution above 1400x900 right now, and even 14x9 is usually only encountered on an enthusiast pc or laptop - like me. My desktop has a res of 1280x1024, but I sometimes pick 1600x1200 or 1400x900 depending on my mood. I think the 'standard' desktop size (and by standard, I mean a size that almost every pc in existence today can display, in essence the smallest) is ab 1024x768, but is moving to 1400x900. While it would rock socks to have images displayed at 100% all the time, I think the easiest thing to do would be just plop it inside of a url tag, but I really love your idea of having it popout with java.[/img]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, Bonebag. My suggestions are entirely made with the BBC code in mind... The idea is that I don't have to write excessively long coding just to make the img link to the full URL. Hence why using img* or img link=true (within the brackets for BBC) will automatically change the BBC into a linked image that links to itself for a full resolution.

What I meant was that I really like your ideas, but I think that it might adversely affect people with smaller resolutions, so directly linking it to (your image host here) would be easiest. On the same note, though, I think it would be really nice if people had some more tags to play with.

Edit: After re-reading what your original idea was, I somehow got it mixed up "Just have the image be 100% to scale 100% of the time." Ignore what I said before, I got mixed up . On that note, I am so on board with this idea.

... What? You're missing my point.

The size of the image will not change. It will remain the same, adaptable and dynamic. This is purely to make it easier to link to larger images.

http://www.rprepository.com/c/miwahdu/3951

When I have a character with over a dozen, larger images to display, it's a ridiculously tedious task to use [ url=blah blah][ img ] blah blah [ /img ] [ /url ] for every, single, darned picture. It drives me nuts.

If I can just add an asterix * to the [ img ] tag, or add link=true to it, so that the BBC conversion AUTOMATICALLY changes every picture to be linked, it would save time, space and make the coding a lot easier to edit afterwards. Now it's just a mess of url and img tags...

Edit: Posted before your edit! Lmao. This was getting confusing, I'm glad it's clear though.

Also! Customizing it with height/width, you can make your images even smaller (thumbnail sized) and then have them linked to the full image. Here's a concrete example of the BBC:

[ img* height=100 width=100 ] http://www.rprepository.com/images/playericons/plico-574.jpg?1297452073 [ /img ]

This would resize the image to 100x100 pixels, plus the * would make the image link to itself. That's the idea I'm going for here. I don't know if the height/width is possible, but yeah!

Sorry to be slow on the uptake. I burned the ever loving shhhhhh out of my hand last night and I'm slightly retarded on pain killers right now.

If I'm reading this right the complaint is really about not liking the way nested tags look when editing, rather than about actual convenience? Automatic linking sounds like duplicate functionality that would take something simple and make it far more complex on the code side.

Height and width parameters to image tags sound much more reasonable to me, although the catch there is that while it might be your choice to potentially bust your own character pages, the same tags would then be available on forums, in news comments, etc., where it would not be anyone's right to break other people's viewing experience.

Since abuse is low to nonexistent around here, it might not be a problem worth worrying about right now though... Especially since big images are only annoying, but not dangerous.

Hm, no. The nested tags is just a little side-thing that bugs me, because I'm an organize freak with coding and BBC can get pretty @_@ for me if there's too much squished together.

It's really just that our images are forced to be resized with the current setup for both galleries and img tags, and when I have chars like Miwahdu with 17 large images that I all want full-views of, I have to link every single image to itself. It feels a bit redundant and can make displaying your character art at full size a real downer when using RPR, in my opinion.

I do understand that on the coding end it may be a bit more difficult. But in my opinion, being able to make linking to large images (which is usually large art for rp chars) would be a feature useful when we have more users in the future. All a matter of making it easier for people.

Of course, just a suggestion. If it's too much trouble or not big enough of an issue, it's not necessary. It'd just be more convenient!

Yeah, I understand how that could be rough. It's sort of a double bind for me though, as the 95% resize rule was added in response to many many complaints about oversized images "breaking" pages. It was especially an issue for people with huge monitors who didn't realize they were be screwing up someone else's display, the people with smaller monitors would submit bug reports to me instead of the page's author.

Of course. I do get that, and on one hand I'm really pleased that it automatically adjusts. It's a pain for too many images though.

I think that embedded images need to stay where they're at, if you ask me. But ones in the gallery lightboxes shouldn't. Iz baed.