Attachments vs Inline Picts?

[Harv]

This topic has popped up on the Chinese Tractor thread, but I thought it might be worth a thread of its own. It's one of those things I've been curious about for a while, so what the heck -- might as well put it out there for public opinion.

As a frequent picture poster and a recent contributor to the new inline trend, I am curious as to what the general populace prefers out there. Kinda hard to ask the question without clarifying the issues, so here's my feeble attempt:

Attachment
Pros: Does not add to the message download time.
The viewer has the choice of whether to download it or not.
Gets saved and archived in the TBN database and will be available for later reference. (I know last year's attachments are inaccessible right now, but I'm betting Muhammad finds a way to bring them back).

Cons: Takes time to upload them.
Limited to one file per message.
Limited to 200K.
Hard to view picture and text together (but using a separate window helps).

Inline Image
Pros: Easy to post (no upload time)
Puts picture(s) and text together (nice)
No size limit.
Can reference images from other web sites (legal issues notwithstanding).
Multiple picts per message are possible.

Cons: File must exist on a web server.
Adds considerably to message download time (depending on size of file).
Viewer is forced to download it in order to read the accompanying message.
If referenced from another site, may not be around later.

Link (Inline clickable reference to an image, like this)
Pros: Does not add to message download time.
Viewer has the choice to download the image or not.
Multiple links per message are possible.
Can reference images from other web sites (same legal deal)
No size limit.

Cons: File must exist on a web server.
Hard to view picture and text together.
If referenced from another site, may not be around later.

Well, that's a stab at it, anyway. The question is, what do y'all prefer? Those with a high-speed connection probably don't care as much as those with a slow modem connected by barbed wire, but I'd be interested in everybody's opinion.

Disclaimer: This is purely for my own curiosity, and is not intended to suggest that Muhammad or anyone else on this forum change how things are being done. /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif

 

[HR_Mutt]

Harv
Good call on this thread/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gifI'll jump on this one! The inline graphics were a neat novelty when they first appeared.As their use is getting more frequent, the discussion(text) is getting slowed down and hopping around the screen while you try to read it.I got used to, and enjoyed the option of opening a new window (if interested) and letting pic load minimized while reading the text personally.Almost as irritating as the background music at some sights. LOL!/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif but that was another thread.
regards
Mutt

 

[Rowski]

I'll try and take a stab at this too.

I beleive that the attachments, inline images, and links all have their own place. Attachments work well if one would like to show something that is not "available" on the net. Like a picture from a digital cammera, scanner, spread sheet, hand drawing. Inline images work well for conparison of images in a thread. Links are great for what they are.

I wonder a few things. Attachments seem to work well. Size of file seems to be O.K. I wonder if one could know the size of the attachment files before the download of the image. Could the inline images be limited to a smaller size? Also could it be set in ones preferences to either turn inline images on or off? The links seem to work well as they are.

Just an opinion of someone who just knows enough about computers to be dangerous.

BTW, I run between 40 & 50 kbps at home with moden. At work between 25 & 35 kbps with a moden.

Nice "this" link, Harv.

Derek

 

[MChalkley]

I said my bit over in Chinese, er, in the the Chinese tractor forum thread, er, in the thread on forums about Chinese tractors /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif, but I'll say it again here.

My problem isn't one of preference, as in liking them or not - I always prefer pictures vs. not having them. A picture is worth a thousand words, you know. (That's a saying I made up last week while looking at one of the posts on this board, in fact.)

My problem (at least the one that is relevant to this discussion), is bandwidth. Almost half the time, I'm connected at 14.4k. I do have a DirecPC satellite connection, but I only get 25 hours a month on that, so I'm very infrequently using it to read TractorByNet, as you can imagine. So, usually, when I open a thread with inline pics in it, it takes so long to download at that speed that I just have to kill it and forget about it. (I know, I know, Harv, you forgot to list that as one of the advantages of inline pics - now you'll all be doing it to keep me from reading the thread and throwing my .02 worth in.)

Sometimes, I happen to get connected at 32.2k, but not often. When that happens, the inline pics aren't so bad. As I said, I like to see them (most of the time), I just don't have the bandwidth to keep it from being an excruciatingly slow and frustrating experience. With links, if it's a thread that I'm interested in, I can either take the time to check the pics then, or come back when I've got a faster connection and do it - my choice. I'd like to see a preference to turn them off, if it could display a link instead. Then I could still look at the picture if I wanted to.

MarkC

 

[Muhammad]

I guess it's time for guidelines on this....

Although the practice is done quite frequently all over the web, referencing an image from another server is considered "leeching" since the bandwidth isn't on our server but rather the server that the image is hosted on. So, really what I'd like to see with any images you want to show from another server is for them to be linked to, instead of referenced to in your message with the image tag. Also, this saves on loading time and you have the option to view it, or not view it.

Uploading of flies and images is fine, so long as you own the rights to that file, or have permission from the right holder to republish it. If you want to share an image that you find on another site, and don't have the rights or permission to republish, then link to it with the url markup tag. Sure, if the image is moved or removed from the site, you won't be able to view it anymore, but this is about all we can do in this area.

Saving such images and posting them as attachments to some extent can be considered fair use of the images, but I would encourage linking to the image on their server (not with the image tag, but rather with the url tag) rather than uploading it here as an attachment.

 

[JohnMiller3]

I'm probably the guiltiest of them all.../w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif

I just gots to have those inline pictures, diagrams, charts, flowcharts, etc... mixed with same page text... Everything is right in front of you... Learning is easier and faster...

Now the download speeds are another issue... I agree maybe a "software switch" can be set up for registered users to block all/limit size/ or selective block {like all John Miller, III}, etc. for all inline stuff... then maybe "on the fly" a browser/user can "change his mind" and just take a peek @ a post that may be interesting to them.

Set up a separate area for "attachments" so they will be shown "inline". Let a user post their picture with a brief description in this area. Now the user can "point" to this attachment in his/hers intended post and have it inline. This method will allow the user to post multiple pictures of theirs...inline, instead of multiple postings of individual separate attachments.

In other words, have a separate one way Attachment Forum, that would be blocked for replys, as none would be required.

Wow, I typed all this without posting one itsy bitsy picture... miracles never cease... /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

"You are what you eat, drink, think, say and do..."

 

[JohnMiller3]

<font color=blue>...(not with the image tag, but rather with the url tag)...</font color=blue>

Then with these guidelines, perhaps you should delete the [image] tag to prevent its use entirely... /w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif

"You are what you eat, drink, think, say and do..."

 

[Anonymous Poster]

At work I have a T1 line, in-line pics are not an issue. But at home I only get 26k (my provider tells me I'm the only one, everyone else is getting 56K /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif). I would rather see attachments vs inline.

Q: If you were to turn the graphics off, would you still have the ability to view inline photos on a post-by-post basis, or would you need to change your preferences each time you wanted to view an inline photo?

Attachments already give us the view / not view option.

 

[Muhammad]

Hmm, maybe I will look into only allowing the image tag in the photo forum...

 

[MarkV]

Now you guys are way over my head when you start talking all the computer term, so I'll just ask a question. If, <font color=blue> , maybe I will look into only allowing the image tag in the photo forum...</font color=blue>, does that get rid of all the signature art? Now that I have a DSL line everything is fine for me, but I remember what MarkC is going through and it almost drove me from the forum at one time.

MarkV