|
Re: Larger profile pic than 80KB?
by jdporter (Paladin) on Oct 02, 2023 at 19:27 UTC
|
I notice that vroom explicitly stated the limit would be 80kb in his announcement of the feature, Home Node Image.
He did not give a justification. I presume it was some combination of (a) keeping database consumption to a reasonable limit (80kb is by itself larger than the maximum size of a textual node);
and (b) a guideline that an avatar or profile pic shouldn't need to be large, perhaps based on (c) not overburdening the download bandwidth of users. These all seem reasonable to me.
Note that the limitation is only imposed at upload time; the database field storing the image data is actually limited to 16Mb, so we could theoretically put a larger image in the database than 80kb.
Feel free to submit your reasonable supplications to the gods via /msg. :-)
Also, if monks would like to argue that the limit should be something higher than 80kb, please discuss here. Thanks!
Today's latest and greatest software contains tomorrow's zero day exploits .
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Thank you jdporter for this responsive professional answer. It does satisfy everything.
Update: I like the secret being kept that those privy to this thread can dump a few MB behind the scenes without anyone else knowing, so no changes to the default are requested here ;)
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: Larger profile pic than 80KB?
by soonix (Canon) on Oct 02, 2023 at 09:08 UTC
|
| [reply] |
Re: Larger profile pic than 80KB?
by cavac (Parson) on Oct 20, 2023 at 07:28 UTC
|
Well, 80kB is enough for a picture. I don't see that as a limitation, more of a challenge to overcome. My profile picture is even animated. And the "you can't post pictures in discussions" thing didn't stop me from posting colorful pictures and Gnuplot graphs.
It's just a test on out-of-the-box thinking.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
My profile picture is even animated
Related to the recent nudge from kcott,
and without really understanding what I was doing,
I was surprised to see an animated "eyepopslikeamosquito" Unicode emoji (with a blinking eye)
with the following in my private scratchpad:
<P>
<pre>
<img src="https://fonts.gstatic.com/s/e/notoemoji/latest/1f441_fe0f/51
+2.gif"
alt="👁" width="32" height="32">
<big><big><big>🍾</big></big></big>
<big><big><big>👍</big></big></big>
<big><big><big>🦟</big></big></big>
</pre>
</P>
That is, the above displays an animated blinking eye along with the usual
"pops", "like", and "mosquito" Unicode emojis ... but only in my private scratchpad,
not when I Preview the post.
I got the idea from these two web sites:
If anyone can explain the difference between my private scratchpad versus making a post, please let us know.
Update: I only see the animation in my Scratchpad (both Private and Public) while Editing, when I View
either Scratchpad, the animation disappears.
Also interested to hear opinions on whether animated emojis are welcome on Perl Monks or should be banned.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As usual this discussion is missing the real point,
IMAO°
It's not if 80kb are enough, but if settings from the end 90s are sufficiently user friendly nowadays.
I'm not sure if it's even possible to set my smartphone to such "small" camera pics.
And a "new" website would do the downsizing on server side to avoid bothering the user.
Since changing the code here is too much of a hassle, we should consider providing a help text explaining how to easily down scale pics to 80kb.
Like a one liner for convert on Linux...
°) in my arrogant opinion...
update
In hindsight, rescaling could probably already be done on client side nowadays., with JavaScript.
A current Firefox so fat that I have trouble running it on an old netbook, so there must be some included lib for that. (Emacs as operating system jokes are for grandmas ;)
Quick search found https://imagekit.io/blog/how-to-resize-image-in-javascript/ (tldr)
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Of course, you are right. 80kB is quite a low limit these days.
But even modern up-to-date web platforms have relatively low limits on profile pictures that are hard to match with a modern phone camera without editing. For example, Mastodon has 2MB with a max size of 400x400, mostly to reduce network traffic and server storage. Every time a user looks into their timeline, the browser has to fetch all profile images from every user displayed in the timeline. A server might have to store hundred, thousands or (if the platform takes off) maybe even millions of profile pictures.
I think most of the bigger websites these days do (at least) the cropping on client side. It's the stuff where you "upload" a picture of your face and then it asks you to resize and position it so your face fills the rectangle or circle. This, too, saves on network traffic and a huge amount of server load.
An alternative/addition could even be some kind of avatar generator for those monks that don't like to upload a real photo. Something like this one.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
It's not if 80kb are enough, but if settings from the end 90s are sufficiently user friendly nowadays
Spot on LanX
The Monastery is wonderful for the content, community and cooperation that exists here. But I do sometimes wonder if Noah is wandering the archaic corridors. If Perl is to be the language of choice for programmers in 25 years time, I very much doubt it will be The Monastery that will entice them.
Having said that, they tell me "retro" is in fashion...
Edit - missing verb added - thanks to kcott for spotting the mistake.
| [reply] |
Re: Larger profile pic than 80KB?
by harangzsolt33 (Chaplain) on Oct 02, 2023 at 16:37 UTC
|
maybe because of bandwidth limitation. | [reply] |
