I am writing to ask if there is a policy or guideline limiting the width (in pixels) of images posted to the forum.
I noticed recently that one of my posts had been edited, with no apparent change to the text, and when I went into the edit window to see what changes had actually been made, I saw that width=800 tags had been added to a number of images with actual pixel widths of 942, 827, 893, and 788. In this case, the images involved were all sign illustrations drawn and rasterized to a consistent scale, and the imposition of a uniform image width of 800 means that each image is now displayed at a different scale while viewers of the thread still have to consume the same bandwidth to load the images. (Image width directives in tags do not allow browsers to forgo a full load of each image.)
I don't propose to undo these edits, but it would be helpful to have a certain image width above which images are considered fair game for insertion of width directives. This would enable the images to be resampled to come down below this threshold, and so would save bandwidth and moderator effort.
I'm pretty sure they've stated a policy/guideline of no wider than 800 pixels.
You are correct Froggie. The width limit is indeed 800 pixels.
Thanks for this. I did try to look up the pixel width/height limits (since this is a classic example of a RTFM question) but was not able to find a "Posting guidelines" page linked from the forum front page. A Google search for {AARoads forum posting guidelines} did turn up this (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0;wap2), which I suggest would profit from greater prominence.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 02, 2009, 10:52:56 AM
Thanks for this. I did try to look up the pixel width/height limits (since this is a classic example of a RTFM question) but was not able to find a "Posting guidelines" page linked from the forum front page. A Google search for {AARoads forum posting guidelines} did turn up this (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0;wap2), which I suggest would profit from greater prominence.
It's a sticky within the "Welcome!" forum (same forum as this thread), although I agree it would be better if that thread were linked from the front page.
I really don't see any better place for it than stickied in the Welcome! board. That's the first place I'd look for it.
And I question your inability to find it considering that it is stickied at the top of this very board...
Believe me, I did not find the "Posting guidelines" thread, even though I was looking for information it contained and had looked at it months ago. Think about it this way: there is a bright shining line between durable standards (like maximum pixel widths) and discussion threads where, in general, anyone can post, the content can change from day to day, and (unless the thread is stickied in some way) pronouncements from authority can be obscured by later postings to other threads.
For material which logically should belong in the first category, most experienced Internet users' first port of call would be something calling itself "FAQ," "Guidelines," or similar, which would be linked from the board top page, on the theory that if the board owners really wish for the rules to be followed, they will be given maximum possible prominence.
In contradistinction, finding the guidelines thread relies on users realizing (1) that it will be in a Meta board which is one link away from the top page and contains mostly introduction threads, and (2) that it will have been stickied in perpetuity, and so it will not be necessary to use a search engine of uncertain specification to find it. (I never even considered using the forum search to find the version of the posting guidelines which turned up in a Google search. I know how Google works, so I can guess that the page I am interested in will be near the top of the results returned, and I won't have to trawl through a load of irrelevant material to find it. I don't have similar confidence with forum search engines in general.)
As I see it, it is fundamentally a question of usability. There will be some troublesome users who are determined to push the rules to breaking point, but in my experience it is more common for users simply to forget technical details like maximum pixel width criteria. In my case, I had totally forgotten there were such criteria, and had instead been seeking to size my images in a way which would minimize horizontal scrolling, for general usability reasons. (There are numerous examples of images in the Road-related Illustrations thread, for example, which force horizontal scrolling even on my system, and I am using a laptop with 1280 x 800 screen resolution.) Of course, ignorantia non excusat, but in reality a person who succeeds in complying with the rules most of the time will not have occasion to look at a "Guidelines" thread often, and can easily forget that it is there and that it is the vehicle for communicating posting standards.
It is a useful suggestion to move the Guidelines to a more noticeable location, or at least have a noticeable "FAQ/Guidelines" link from the front page. I think we ought to take it under consideration.