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 "town hall" (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

+5
−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

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
+4
−0

I think there are two considerations, input and output. We don't want to render more than is reasonable to see in a web page, so either (a) we're transmitting a huge image and the browser scales it down (slow!) or (b) we're transmitting a huge image and the browser doesn't scale it down (bad UX!) or (c) we're transmitting a suitably scaled image (ideal). Currently, if I understand correctly, we're doing a mix of (a) and (c) -- scaling down at render-time if needed and limiting how big the image can be to start with.

Many phones these days take pictures that are larger than 2MB, and editing on a phone can be difficult. I'd like it to be possible to upload a larger image and have it be scaled down as part of the upload process to the maximum width/height we're willing to render, whatever that is. This would mean accepting larger input but only storing (and paying to store) what we plan to use for output. This could be either automatic at the back end or something the user has to confirm during the upload ("scaling down 40% (ok) (cancel)"). If we did something like this, then the size limit could be for the scaled-down image, regardless of the input size.

If we could build in scaling at upload time, then that might open the door in the future to other at-upload-time edits, like cropping (another feature request we've seen).

History

1 comment thread

If images are resized client-side before uploading to the server, we'll mitigate the issue where the ... (2 comments)
If images are resized client-side before uploading to the server, we'll mitigate the issue where the ...
Andreas‭ wrote about 1 year ago

If images are resized client-side before uploading to the server, we'll mitigate the issue where the user has a very slow upload speed (this should be much more common than slow download speeds).

Either way, if an image is compressed/resized, the user should see that in the preview to determine if enough detail is still visible in the image. If there isn't, they might just have a good case of needing more than 2 MBs.

As you write, if we do resize/compression in the image upload, we should probably let the user crop their image, too. Alternatively we'll let them upload the whole image, and then specify the frame (cropping off the edges) somewhere in the post, so that it can be edited later by the author themselves or other users, if need be.

trichoplax‭ wrote about 1 year ago

I like this idea of scaling down client side (and confirming this first so the user can decide - especially with a preview). This might combine well with Make images easily clickable for full-size viewing, so we upload the full size image but future viewers of the post don't download the full size version unless they click on the scaled down image.

This might also leave your editable cropping option open. If the link to the full image is present but only viewed in a separate page for users who choose to, then the information is still on the server if a future editor wants to include more of the original in the cropped version later.