Problems with the painful procedure for placing pictures...

[ngauger]

yeah - That's a big help... We need more people to check the pictures and see how they look on different machines, Operating Systems, and Browsers...

Thanks!!!!

[doctorwayne]

I just looked at your pictures, Val (nice work ) and clicking on "Properties" shows that they are the same dimensions as Andrew stated, although the KB size for the first pic is 171.08 and for the second 161.78. It also includes the info that the first pic has been "scaled to 714x354px" and the second one to 714x352px.
The images are roughly 2/3 the width of my 19" monitor, and each one occupies about 2/3 the height of the screen. There are no scroll bars, and no "hand" icon to click for a bigger image. Like Andrew, my screen is set to 1024x768.

I'm not sure what you mean by operating system and browser, Mikey, but I have Windows XP Media Center Edition, and am using Mozilla Firefox.

EDIT: And I don't know if it should make any difference, but I just now viewed the pictures using Internet Explorer and get the same view with the images taking up the same amount of space on the screen.. However, clicking on properties shows the KB sizes to be 175 and 165, the same as Andrew, but the pixel-size dimension for the first is 717x356 and 717x354 for the second one.

Wayne

[ngauger]

I'm not sure what you mean by operating system and browser, Mikey, but I have Windows XP Media Center Edition, and am using Mozilla Firefox.

EDIT: And I don't know if it should make any difference, but I just now viewed the pictures using Internet Explorer and get the same view with the images taking up the same amount of space on the screen.. However, clicking on properties shows the KB sizes to be 175 and 165, the same as Andrew, but the pixel-size dimension for the first is 717x356 and 717x354 for the second one.

Wayne

That's exactly what I mean Thanks!!!!

Interesting that the :Compression is different for Mozilla than it is for IE ... But they do stay almost the same size... Each browser must treat pics differently.

Thanks!! I'm sure Pat will want to see that information.

[path]

I was sent to an article on the phpbb.com site that provided information on how to prevent image cut off. I guess there are other forums that see similar problems. After a bunch of people tried different solutions, what seemed the best was to use css to tell the browsers how to handle the image. This css was supposed to work best for different people with different resolutions and browsers. I'm wonder if maybe Safari isn't respecting the css. The code I used is telling the browser to shrink the image to the width of the div for the postbody only if your screen isn't wide enough. So people with wide screens probably don't see any shrinking. People will smaller screens will see some shrinking. The image is supposed to maintain it's aspect ratio so it doesn't look like the circus skinny mirror. I'm including the css code below. If there is something I can do do fix this css to make it work for all browsers, I'll be happy to do that.

Code:

.postimg {
        border-width: 0;
        max-width: 100%;
}

The above code is only used for images that are linked to external sites. Below is the css code that I think it used for attaching images to a post (not the gallery). As you can see, attaching images to posts will limit the height, so I assume that would create the scroll bar. Attaching images to a post is like attaching a file to an email. It's different from linking to external sites and different from using the gallery.

Code:

.attach-image {
        margin: 3px 0;
        width: 100%;
        max-height: 350px;
        overflow: auto;
}

The gallery has some special css code that does the "lytebox" effect. That is when you click on an image and it comes to the foreground and grays out the background forum webpage. I'm not sure if there is a problem with that and I'm not sure how many people use that feature. I suspect some people upload stuff to the gallery and then link to it using the "img" button instead of the "albumimg" button. That probably won't work so well, but I think all of this adds to the confusion.

I also wonder if there are too many ways to display images and that could be confusing. But I think that people who use each of these methods really prefer them over other methods, so if one were disabled.. a bunch of people would be upset.

[path]

I just changed the attach-image css to what is below. Basically Charlie was using the attach image feature and when the thumbnail resizing feature was turned off, it constrained the image by height to the 350 pixels. By commenting that out, it will overflow the postbody. Will that become a problem??? Below is the current code..

Code:

.attach-image {
        margin: 3px 0;
        width: 100%;
        overflow: auto;
}

What's also interesting is that attaching files is not just a normal html image link. They are drawing a box and whatnot..

Code:

<dl class="attachbox">
<dt>Attachments</dt>
<dd><dl class="file">
<dt class="attach-image"><img src="./download/file.php?id=846" alt="B&amp;0 STATION CHICORA PA 04-79.jpg" onclick="viewableArea(this);" /></dt>
<dd>B&amp;0 STATION CHICORA PA 04-79.jpg (76.56 KiB) Viewed 5 times</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>

[doctorwayne]

The gallery has some special css code that does the "lytebox" effect. That is when you click on an image and it comes to the foreground and grays out the background forum webpage. I'm not sure if there is a problem with that and I'm not sure how many people use that feature. I suspect some people upload stuff to the gallery and then link to it using the "img" button instead of the "albumimg" button. That probably won't work so well, but I think all of this adds to the confusion.

I also wonder if there are too many ways to display images and that could be confusing. But I think that people who use each of these methods really prefer them over other methods, so if one were disabled.. a bunch of people would be upset.

Based on what I'm used to, clicking on the image is the intuitive way to get an enlargement, which would also provide you with a line of "img" data to copy, which you would then paste into your post. However, I much prefer the size and quality of the image supplied by clicking on the photo's "Image Name" - not intuitive for me (yet), which does give you the "img" data to copy, for posting. The resultant picture, when posted, however, is partially cut-off along its right side. If the viewer clicks on this image, they'll see the complete picture, but in the "lytebox" effect.

Sorry to be such a pain in the rectal tissue about this, Pat, but if it's any consolation, I bitched a lot about the Gallery and picture posting in that "other" place, too. I do appreciate the trouble you're going to in order to get this working right, though, and I'm willing to be patient.
It's a lot easier to convey information with a few pictures than it is to keep blathering on with a lot of words, although the ability to easily post satisfactory images is unlikely to temper my verbosity.

Wayne

[path]

Ok, first question.. you are using the gallery for images? Not linking to remote sites or attaching images to a post, right??

Second, where are you clicking on the image? I thought if you clicked on an image anywhere, it would do the lytebox effect. Where are you getting this "img" data to copy and can you post an example of this data?

What "Image Name" are you clicking on?

I need to understand exactly what people are trying to do, because there seems to be an insane amount of confusion in this area. I think things are getting lost in communication.

[Fluesheet]

Wayne,

Pat has a good point about confusion about where the confusion is. Consider adding a screenshot to go along with your descritions. I've seen a lot of conversations go down diverging paths due to different assumptions about what a user is intending - pictures are worth more than a thousand words in this case!

Describe your scenario (i.e. "clicking on the photo's "Image Name" gives you the "img" data to copy, for posting. The resultant picture, when posted, however, is partially cut-off along its right side."), then hit the <alt> then <print screen> buttons (while still holding <alt>).

Open MS Paint and paste (cntrl+v, edit | paste or right click | paste - your call!), save as a file, then attach to your post. Draw on the image first if that helps show your intent. A quick example is posted below.

My apologies if you know the details of the steps above.

Matt

edit - I should note that at my resolution (1680x1050), I can see the entire screenshot image below. At 1024x768, about the right third is cut off, though I can see it by using the horizontal scroll bar on my browser. Wayne, Is this what is happening in your right-third-cut-off scenario? I'm using Firefox.

[doctorwayne]

Ok, first question.. you are using the gallery for images? Not linking to remote sites or attaching images to a post, right??

That's correct: I'm speaking of images which I've placed in my Gallery Albums.

Second, where are you clicking on the image? I thought if you clicked on an image anywhere, it would do the lytebox effect. Where are you getting this "img" data to copy and can you post an example of this data?

If I open an Album, I can click on a thumbnail and get the lytebox effect. The is no "img" data displayed with this method. Although it no longer seems to work, originally, I could click on the lytebox image and "Copy" it, then paste it into my composition window.

What "Image Name" are you clicking on?

The "Image Name" appears under the thumbnail - it's the name which I've given to each particular photograph. If you click on this instead of the thumbnail, you get a regular (not lytebox) enlargement of the picture. What was identified as "Image Name" beneath the thumbnail is then called the "Image Title", although it's the same text as that which appears as "Image Name".
Beneath this is a box entitled "Image BB Code:" - in it appears "[album]###[/album]
And beneath that is a box entitled "Image-URL" - in it appears "http......" and ending in the "image id number, which is the same as the ### in the previous box.

Clicking on the data in the "Image BB Code" box causes it to be highlighted: you then click "Copy" and then "Paste" it into the composition window.
When posted, the image appears - sometimes all of it, other times with part of the right side missing. This seems to be independent of picture size, although I don't generally check picture "Properties" when posting - I figure that if I could manage to get it into the Gallery, it should be sized to also display correctly. I've recently started to make upload images even smaller (640x480), but that's no guarantee that part of the picture won't be missing. Clicking on any posted images seems to give the lytebox effect, and if the image is one that's missing its right side, the whole image is displayed in the lytebox.

I need to understand exactly what people are trying to do, because there seems to be an insane amount of confusion in this area. I think things are getting lost in communication.

That's certainly true, Pat. Here's what I see when I go to my Gallery:

[album]498[/album]

Clicking on "Structure Photos", I get this:
[album]497[/album]

If I click on the thumbnail at top left, I see this:
[album]496[/album]

If I hover over the "Image Name", it's highlighted, as shown here:
[album]495[/album]

If I click on the highlighted "Image Name", I get this enlargement, complete with the two boxes below the "Image Title":
[album]494[/album]

Clicking on the "Image BBcode" box highlights it, like this:
[album]499[/album]

then I hit "Copy", then "Paste" it into my post.

All of these screenshots were sized to 640x480 - we'll see if the full image posts or if we get the "condensed" version.

EDIT: I was composing this as Matt posted - on his screenshot, I can see the entire thing by using the scroll bars. On my pictures which are partially cut-off, there are no scroll bars but if you click on the partial image, it will be displayed, in its entirety, in a lytebox. I'll see if I can find an example to post here.

Wayne

[doctorwayne]

A quick look around found this. While most of the picture is visible, part of the right side is not in this "normal" view:
[album]503[/album]

Note that there are no scroll bars to indicate that the picture is larger than it appears.

However, clicking on the image yields this:
[album]500[/album]

Note the extra stuff visible along the right side. It's not particularly important in this picture, but a close-up of a freight car or loco could have an important part of the image not readily apparent, even if it's there with a "click".

Here's the first screenshot in this post at 800x600, then again at 1024x768, to show, hopefully, the effect of posting at different sizes. The photo shown in the screenshot, incidentally, was placed in the Gallery at 800x600, before the latest increase in the size allowable.
[album]502[/album]

[album]501[/album]

EDIT: As expected, the bigger the size placed into the Gallery, the more is cut-off of the right side, at least on my screen. Note, too, that there are no scroll bars.

Wayne

[Fluesheet]

Fantastic post, doc!

[doctorwayne]

Thanks, Matt.

I just now realised that in those last two screenshots, the click-on function actually still works.

Wayne

[path]

Yea, but it should not be cutting anything off with when you use the {album} {albumimg} or {albumthumb} bbcode.

I'm going to see if I can track down the problem. It must be some CSS thing with the album software.

[path]

OK, I've changed the {album} and {albumimg} bbcode definitions. They will now use the postimg class that I mentioned a few posts back in this thread. So it should be similar to images linked to external sites. This seems to work in most browsers. It should shrink the image to the width of your browser window (only if your browser is smaller than the image is wide). It should maintain the aspect ratio.

Sorry for not understanding some of these image problems.. it's pretty hard to wrap your head around some of this stuff when you can't see it first hand. So thanks for all those screen shots! That really helped to explain it.

[doctorwayne]

And thank you for continuing to work on this.

Now, if we can "up" either the number of Albums allowed or the number of pictures allowed per Album, I may have to stop being such a nuisance. If we can have only one of those options, I'd prefer the former.

Wayne (the Pain)