Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Allow including larger images

Parent

Allow including larger images

+3
−4

Many images and screenshots captured today, are larger than 2 MB, the max allowed size on Codidact. This means users will regularly run into a barrier when attempting to upload images to their posts (or profile). Just now, I wanted to create a new post, which would benefit from some screenshots, however, that process was more complicated than it should have to be, because I was denied uploading the screenshots, as they were too large. I can still upload them, but I'll have to go compress them first. Codidact should accept images with a larger file size more reasonable today.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

4 comment threads

Also a UX and accessibility issue (1 comment)
Realism about compression (3 comments)
Server Side is MUCH Better (7 comments)
Implementation (1 comment)
Post
+1
−1

The maximum size limit should not get in the way of legitimate and properly edited images. A 1920 x 1080 screen has 2.1 MPixels. Just about any compression algorithm should be able to get that down to 2 MB without losing any real information, especially considering that large areas of most screens are flat colors.

However, posting a shot of your entire screen should be exceedingly rare. We probably don't need to see all the windows on the screen, the window borders, etc. People should be taking some care to trim and resize any image posted here so that it shows what it needs to without wasted space, and not cause wasted time by those trying to interpret the image. If a size limit prohibits lazy screen shot dumping, that's a Good Thing.

Properly trimming, sizing, and editing an image is no different from properly editing and proofreading the words of a post. A post is written once, then read multiple times. It makes sense to spend the extra effort once to make it easy to read the multiple times. Not putting the effort in can be seen as rude and will usually attract well-deserved downvotes.

Added

A great example of what we don't want just popped up. See the image in THIS question. No attempt was made for even basic trimming, to the point where the stuff at the bottom actually adds confusion to the question. That image was posted at 2083 x 1461 pixels, although it ultimately only got displayed at 640 or so pixels across.

If the system didn't accept the image as-is and the user was forced to edit it, we probably would have gotten a better result. Maybe we need a pixel size limit too, not just a storage limit.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

3 comment threads

"to the point where the stuff at the bottom actually adds confusion to the question." Although the st... (2 comments)
Your example is bad (1 comment)
2 MB barrier is only bad UX, not quality assurance (3 comments)
2 MB barrier is only bad UX, not quality assurance

Well, I have a 4K screen, and the screenshots often end up around 20 MB. Lowering their size is quite tedious, as it involves trying and failing, often because the image loses so much quality when I try to get it below 2 MB.

I think anyone that uses images in posts legitimately, attempts to crop their images properly, and doesn't just dump whole-screen captures in them.

The 2 MB barrier is only bad UX these days, not any real quality assurance. We don't need to raise it to 100 MB, but at least bringing it up to 10 MB, is useful. Even if it goes above 20 MB, let Codidact compress it.

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote 2 months ago

If you have such a large image, it is very likely that it contains way more detail than necessary. If you let the system compress it, then you have no control over what detail exactly gets removed. There are many image editing tools out there. Cropping the image to strip off the irrelevant areas, then filtering down to smaller resolution is a really easy thing to do and accessible to anyone.

Andreas witnessed the end of the world today‭ wrote 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

I already covered that in my previous comment. After cropping, the images are still way over the limit. Other times, fullscreen images are necessary, for instance from video games, so cropping isn’t an option.

Also, no, you’re underestimating the time and effort it takes to resize or compress an image. I don’t understand why any of that is supposed to be an argument against Codidact just doing it.