Gigantic Monitor Posts

[Bamboomoon]

I have a modest but probably normal 12 inch monitor, and find it frustrating to try and read posts that run off the (my) page. I assume the problem is that the gigantic posts are coming from someone with a graphics size monitor. Is that assumption correct? If so, couldn't you gigantic monitor folks take pity on us less fortunate boo brethren, and re-size your page before plunging in? Or is this too much to ask? Or have you never thought of it before? Or is it necessary to advertise your gigantic monitors, having paid so much for them? Just wondering if any monster monitor people will notice this post, or correct me on my assumptions?

[BruceLofland]

The only time I have had to scroll right or left is when a picture is posted that is wider than that. I think it is reasonable to ask folks to keep picture sizes to no more that 640 x 480 or smaller. Dial-up people would appreciate that also.

I run all my machines at 1024x768 resolution. I think this is pretty common. You can use large fonts if that is too hard to read on your monitor.

I was looking through the advertisements recently and found some 17 to 19 inch monitors on sale for less than $200. Maybe that would be a good Christmas present.

[Roy]

I have a modest but probably normal 12 inch monitor, and find it frustrating to try and read posts that run off the (my) page. I assume the problem is that the gigantic posts are coming from someone with a graphics size monitor. Is that assumption correct? If so, couldn't you gigantic monitor folks take pity on us less fortunate boo brethren, and re-size your page before plunging in? Or is this too much to ask? Or have you never thought of it before? Or is it necessary to advertise your gigantic monitors, having paid so much for them? Just wondering if any monster monitor people will notice this post, or correct me on my assumptions?

Bambooman,

I feel your pain, but I don't believe that I've seen a 12 inch monitor in over a decade.

I Googled and did find a 12 incher still being made, but for $359 I thought it was kind of expensive.

Wow! I Googled again and found 5 inch monitors being made.

I'm not sure how this would work, but if everyone made their posts to fit say a 5 inch monitor (or 12 inches in your case) how would the post look on say someone with a 17 inch monitor?

I don't know how one would fix this problem. I have a 17 inch monitor that is 6 years old and I though that 17 inch has been mostly the standard for quite some time and that a lot of 20 inch monitor and above are being bought now.

[Iowaboo]

I have a modest but probably normal 12 inch monitor

12 inches isn't normal.

We still have a 14 inch from '93, but it blanks out some. Our '01 14inch has been having problems for the last couple years with black bars crunching the whole screen. All the pics people posted had unnormal look to them. A couple weeks ago we got a 17" flatscreen for around 100 dollars after rebate was factored in.


I finally get to enjoy the bambooweb.info pics

[mantis]

I though that 17 inch has been mostly the standard for quite some time and that a lot of 20 inch monitor and above are being bought now.

Out of curiosity I ran a poll on another forum that receives higher traffic to get a consensus as to what people are using. Here are the preliminary results:




But one thing to keep in mind is that it's not necessarily the monitor size, but the resolution... If someone was using a 20" monitor with 800x600 resolution then the page would still be messed up.

I remember Bill making a thread showing the stats of monitor resolution for people visiting bamboo web. Hold on and I'll find the link...


http://www.bambooweb.info/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1142


From that it shows the most common resolution being 1024x768, which is in the 15"/17" domain.

I guess now knowing that people still run 12" monitors I'll keep my pics small, and can post links to larger images if a higher level of detail is necessary (for ID purposes and the like.)

-mike.

[mantis]

I have a modest but probably normal 12 inch monitor, and find it frustrating to try and read posts that run off the (my) page.

Just out of curiosity, are you on a laptop, or desktop system?

[Bamboo Conne'isseur]

Maybe I am being ignorant, but shouldn't there be a program that sort of sizes to fit your specs?

[CadyG]

Shoot. When I saw "Gigantic Monitor Posts" I thought you meant you were going to write posts about your gigantic pet monitor lizard. I was looking forward to reading them.

[bambooweb]

BambooMoon,
The problem comes when someone posts a large photo. The page then adjusts to show the photo.
Have you checked out Freecycle? You might find someone geting rid of an 17" crt monitor because they are upgrading to a flatpanel.

I just looked at the resolutions for the visitors in the last two weeks.
Just think of the problems the person with the 320x240 screen is having.
#--------------------------------------------------------
# Screen Resolutions
#--------------------------------------------------------
Screen Resolution Visits
1024x768 2092
1280x1024 559
800x600 447
1152x864 165
1280x800 140
1440x900 72
832x624 68
1680x1050 61
3200x1200 45
1280x768 34
1400x1050 27
1600x1200 22
1920x1200 8
1280x960 8
1280x854 7
1344x840 7
1280x720 6
1600x900 4
1120x840 3
1366x768 2
1440x960 2
1152x768 2
960x600 2
1536x960 2
1152x870 2
1200x1600 2
1280x600 1
2560x1600 1
320x240 1
640x480 1
1064x600 1
2048x1280 1
1152x720 1
1024x1280 1
1360x1024 1
1600x1024 1

[Iowaboo]

Shoot. When I saw "Gigantic Monitor Posts" I thought you meant you were going to write posts about your gigantic pet monitor lizard. I was looking forward to reading them

cadyg, You weren't the only one fooled into thinking that.

[mantis]

I just looked at the resolutions for the visitors in the last two weeks.
Just think of the problems the person with the 320x240 screen is having.

I'm guessing it's from a cell phone

[CadyG]

Shoot. When I saw "Gigantic Monitor Posts" I thought you meant you were going to write posts about your gigantic pet monitor lizard. I was looking forward to reading them

cadyg, You weren't the only one fooled into thinking that.

Come to think of it, I wasn't sure if it was going to be posts about a gigantic monitor lizard, or posts by a gigantic monitor lizard (which would have been truly riveting).

[Thuja]

I was expecting giant photos of giant lizards. Man, was I out in left field again.

For photos inserted within a webpage, I still stick with my classic 600-pixel (or less width). Call it modest, yes, but remember that the picture needs to fit within the webpage, the browser, and whatever else is floating around within the margins. OK, not on Bambooweb, but we all know of other places where ads take up some space on the page too. Anyway, IMHO Bamboomoon makes a good point.

[Roy]

I was expecting giant photos of giant lizards. Man, was I out in left field again.

For photos inserted within a webpage, I still stick with my classic 600-pixel (or less width). Call it modest, yes, but remember that the picture needs to fit within the webpage, the browser, and whatever else is floating around within the margins. OK, not on Bambooweb, but we all know of other places where ads take up some space on the page too. Anyway, IMHO Bamboomoon makes a good point.

The only problem with making all the pictures fit a small size monitor is that you lose the ability to see certain details in the picture. In this case "SIZE does matter".

[Thuja]

I should clarify a bit. I'm not talking about using small photos for inclusion in the gallery but rather the ones that are embedded into messge posts. Most of the time a 600 pixel width photo works fine in a message, especially if a close-up or cropped photo is used. The gallery is the place intended for the bigger photos.

Just my viewpoint. Personally, I think if you consider good webpage design and layout then you begin to think about how your included photo will look on the message board when you press the Preview button. That is one good design feature in GardenWeb. It forces users to preview their resultant page before submitting.