also @ TechSpot: Internet Defense League seeks to protect online freedom

TechSpot

Screenshot size limitations

Discussion in 'Site Feedback and Suggestions' started by jobeard, Feb 15, 2007.

  1. jobeard TechSpot Ambassador

    Taking a screenshot and saving in JPG frequently exceeds the 100k limit imposed
    for uploads. To circumvent the issue, I'm forced to tweek the quality and or
    to reduce the size, which impacts readability.

    I suggest that 100k is too small and should be increase to ~150k
    jobeard, Feb 15, 2007
    #1

  2. kitty500cat Newcomer, in training

    speaking of screenshots: is there a way to shoot the whole screen, not just the running program? otherwise you don't see the taskbar.
    kitty500cat, Feb 15, 2007
    #2

  3. SNGX1275 TechSpot Special Forces

    Print Screen by itself captures the whole screen, whereas alt+printscr only captures the active window.
    [IMG]
    SNGX1275, Feb 15, 2007
    #3

  4. kitty500cat Newcomer, in training

    OK, thx SNGX.

    Regards :)
    kitty500cat, Feb 15, 2007
    #4

  5. Rick TechSpot Staff

    As a wise man named LNCPapa once said, "NO Mercy for the bandwidth impaired!"

    ;)
    Rick, Feb 15, 2007
    #5

  6. jobeard TechSpot Ambassador

    sorry, this is so vague I can't infer your meaning -- I guess you mean NO.

    IMO, the 50k additional is trivial, storage is cheap and the time savings to
    directly upload the screenshot saves time.
    jobeard, Feb 15, 2007
    #6

  7. SNGX1275 TechSpot Special Forces

    He didn't mean "NO".

    While I don't really have any thoughts on attachment size, I do wonder why, with all the free image hosting, you don't just link the picture.

    Pretty much everyone that posts on this site has a google account, and you get free webpage there. If I'm not at work (where I have a web account) I upload to my googlepages account and use that. pages.google.com
    SNGX1275, Feb 15, 2007
    #7

  8. jobeard TechSpot Ambassador

    maybe

    unreasonable expectation and would be an undocumented requirement.

    think USABILITY.
    jobeard, Feb 15, 2007
    #8

  9. SNGX1275 TechSpot Special Forces

    Not "maybe". Papa's comment used to be in his signature, maybe it still is. He put that there because he liked to post huge resolution screen shots of his high res desktops. The "no mercy for the bandwidth impared" meant that he wasn't showing any mercy to those of us still on dialup.

    You sort of have a point with usability. But I rarely click on attachments because I don't want them bringing up yet another window/tab. SO much better if the image appears in the thread.
    SNGX1275, Feb 15, 2007
    #9

  10. jobeard TechSpot Ambassador

    AHHH, an off-topic comment!
    how does one do that?
    I was under the impression that the attachment was the sole means of adding
    a screenshot to a posting. If a member is on a dialup link, I would think that
    attachments were the means to get good browsing w/o downloading the graphics?

    Enough already -- It's a suggestion, not a topic for debate -- it will stand or fall on it's own merit :)
    jobeard, Feb 16, 2007
    #10

  11. Rick TechSpot Staff

    I think a 150kb limit is reasonable.

    The only real negative impacts are 1.) Server bandwidth, 2.) Server storage space, 3.) Dial-up users (Attachments are really harmless in this case, though).

    The first two obviously depend on Julio. I don't suspect the impact would be substantial enough to even reconsider, but none of us are in Julio's shoes at the moment.

    The third is a sad thing, but dial up users are a dying breed and it is time to move on and embrace high-speed. If the size limit imposed is only on file attachments (as I suspect), then no harm is really done here.
    You can use Vb IMG tags to add screenshots, but you have to host it elsewhere.
    Rick, Feb 16, 2007
    #11

  12. SNGX1275 TechSpot Special Forces

    They can also be posted in the gallery and then linked to the forums. But that is almost harder than just having googlepages or imageshack or wherever.
    If that was the case, how do you explain the picture in my first post in this thread?
    SNGX1275, Feb 16, 2007
    #12