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)
Your example is bad
Andreas witnessed the end of the world today‭ wrote 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

A great example of what we don't want just popped up. See the image in THIS question

Quite honestly, that's an awful example to make your case with. That's an effortless question, and can be argued is just as much a misuse of the ability to upload images at all. The problem also lays at an earlier stage; they took a screenshot of the webpage instead of extracting the image from the video. Besides, that was already posted with the 2 MB limit, so I don't see how it's an argument against a higher limit whatsoever. So, the 2 MB limit clearly didn't help them fix their image. It's just an annoying stopgap, not a quality assurance feature.