Over the last few months I’ve received several e-mails regarding photos posted to this site. Each of the missives voiced concern regarding the size of inline pictures (those shown directly in the post rather than the hi-res versions linked to from within said post). By size, I mean both the display size and the file (download) size. This is an issue I have considered before. The problem is twofold.
One: Inline images are generally in the 640×480 (pixels) range for display size. I began using that as my standard guideline for these images because of the resolutions I use on my own computers: 1280×1024 pixels (on my desktop) and 1680×1050 pixels (on my laptop). Also, I assumed most people used resolutions of 1024×768 or higher since computers long ago jumped to SVGA, XGA, and other advanced display systems. It seemed unlikely to me that anyone would be using 800×600 or lower, or that 1024×768 or higher would have difficulty with the size of the inline images. My assumption, however, was incorrect for a great many reasons. Not everyone maximizes their browser window and not everyone uses the entire browser window for pages (e.g., some keep the history or bookmarks sidebars open at all times). Those are just two examples of the infinite number of reasons an assumed minimum screen resolution does not equal available browser real estate. Anyone viewing the site in a manner that reduces the main column width to below 700 pixels or so will find images pushed under the sidebar content—and smaller column widths can push the images completely outside the main blog window (into the gutters on one or both sides of the page). Several of the people who have contacted me specifically mentioned this issue.
Two: Based both on the display size and the quality of the inline photos, the download (file) size of the pictures can be quite large. I post all my personal pictures as JPEGs. Since this graphics format is universally viewable, I standardized on it, but it also uses lossy compression meaning it loses resolution and quality as the file size goes down (i.e., as the compression goes up). In general, I use a compression factor of 1 for all high-quality photos and a compression factor of 15 for lower quality or link photos (i.e., those that link to hi-res versions). When I post inline photos with a compression factor of 1, the size is generally large. That is acceptable for hi-res versions, but some of those who have contacted me made clear the difficulty of viewing the site via dial-up and slower broadband connections due to the inline photos taking so long to download.
To address both concerns, I’m making changes to the way I post photographs. These changes are being implemented immediately. That said, I am grandfathering all previous entries with pictures since (a) there are so many, and (b) I have no intention of going through the more than 3,000 posts to locate all pictures so they can be modified and uploaded again.
What changes am I making? Here’s the scoop.
All inline photos—those visible within the posts themselves—will now be posted in a resolution of 480×360 pixels and with a compression factor of 15. Additionally, these photos will be linked to larger versions even if I’m not posting the hi-res versions. For instance, hi-res pictures are posted at a maximum size of 1152×864 pixels with a compression factor of 1; this maintains the quality of the original photos. When I’m not posting the hi-res version, however, I will link the inline version to a 640×480 version. Some of those 640×480 pics will have a compression factor of 15, and some will vary from 1 to 20. The difference will be based solely on the quality of the photo and how much it degrades with higher compression. Most of them, though, will be at 15 on average so they are not quite as large and more globally available regardless of connection speeds.
Despite all photos being linked to larger versions moving forward, I will still notate with “[click for hi-res version]” those images which link to the high-quality, low compression, large files. This should serve as a warning to those on slower connections that the linked photo is not small and easily handled under such conditions. I hope that will help clarify which photo links should be avoided by those surfing in that manner.
Again, all previous photos are being grandfathered—left just the way they are. This change only impacts future posts.
My hope is that this resolves issues being experienced by those who lack high-speed internet access or who use slower computers that must work harder to process the more complicated and sizable graphic files. Also, it will greatly diminish (if not outright resolve completely) screen resolution hiccups for those who don’t utilize all of their screen real estate for browser sessions.
Obviously, I’m open to feedback on this change both now and in the future. If it’s helpful, let me know. If you hate it, let me know. I’m trying to keep the inline images as appealing as possible while increasing the site’s availability. What I don’t want to do is diminish its enjoyability. Hopefully I’ve stumbled upon a happy middle ground. We shall see.