We wait for the next poll. Which will be should we skip straight from 640 to 1024? Then a big debate will ensue, the poll will close and we will rinse and repeat.
We wait for the next poll. Which will be should we skip straight from 640 to 1024? Then a big debate will ensue, the poll will close and we will rinse and repeat.
... The previous polls all voiced the same desire. ...
???! Trying to beef up your statement with non-relevant links? I'll agree that the last poll just completed had 80% in favor of going to 800x800, but the other poll (yes, singular, as in 1 of 3 you listed) was not so definitive.
... The previous polls all voiced the same desire. ...
???! Trying to beef up your statement with non-relevant links? I'll agree that the last poll just completed had 80% in favor of going to 800x800, but the other poll (yes, singular, as in 1 of 3 you listed) was not so definitive.
Only in your little, imaginary world, Barry, is a vast majority not definitive. The vast majority, 882 out of 10067, favored significant increase. Get it now?
... The previous polls all voiced the same desire. ...
???! Trying to beef up your statement with non-relevant links? I'll agree that the last poll just completed had 80% in favor of going to 800x800, but the other poll (yes, singular, as in 1 of 3 you listed) was not so definitive.
Only in your little, imaginary world, Barry, is a vast majority not definitive. The vast majority, 882 out of 10067, favored significant increase. Get it now?
882 out of 10067 isn't even close to a majority, never mind a vast one. ;o)
I think the question is, Do you really believe that every single member/registered user listed in the database are still active here? I personally dont. But I do believe that the number of people who actually voted in the last 2 polls for the size change represents a majority of the people who actually care about it.
It is crazy to believe that 10,000+ people are active on this site, If that were true, Challenges would have more than 200-300 entries on a regular basis.
Eta: Right now all the challenges that are in voting stage contain a total of 776 images. Now figure out how many of us have more than one image in voting, I have 2 right now. I would guess the number of actual people in is around 400 or even less.
Web design is more of an exercise in lowest common denominator rather than majority, even overwhelmingly, rule.
In our situation when we are designing public web sites, we look at all sorts of metrics.
We can tell what OS, browser, version, screen res, scripting ability, etc. people are on when they visit our sites.
When a desired feature, like screen resolution, is considered, we must have 90% or higher for that particular capability. Just this week we launched a new web site for our corporation. This is the first time we designed for 1024 px width. Until now, the design was for 800 px.
So while 4-1 in favor of something might seem inpressive, it wouldn't meet the required acceptance rate for us.
Just this week we launched a new web site for our corporation. This is the first time we designed for 1024 px width. Until now, the design was for 800 px.
I'd be curious to know who the corporation is. A "standard" non-scaling page width has been 900+px for some years now. (There are no real standards, but measured against enterprise web sites -- Adobe, MS, even Zend -- the wider class site designs outnumber the smaller.)
Web design is more of an exercise in lowest common denominator rather than majority, even overwhelmingly, rule.
In our situation when we are designing public web sites, we look at all sorts of metrics.
We can tell what OS, browser, version, screen res, scripting ability, etc. people are on when they visit our sites.
When a desired feature, like screen resolution, is considered, we must have 90% or higher for that particular capability. Just this week we launched a new web site for our corporation. This is the first time we designed for 1024 px width. Until now, the design was for 800 px.
So while 4-1 in favor of something might seem inpressive, it wouldn't meet the required acceptance rate for us.
Do those clients pay an annual fee to use the site? Do you keep asking them what their size preferences are only to practically overlook the polled results?
it would be interesting to know the number of users who have participated in some way over say the last 6 months, just to get an idea of the number out there.
Web design is more of an exercise in lowest common denominator rather than majority, even overwhelmingly, rule.
In our situation when we are designing public web sites, we look at all sorts of metrics.
We can tell what OS, browser, version, screen res, scripting ability, etc. people are on when they visit our sites.
When a desired feature, like screen resolution, is considered, we must have 90% or higher for that particular capability. Just this week we launched a new web site for our corporation. This is the first time we designed for 1024 px width. Until now, the design was for 800 px.
So while 4-1 in favor of something might seem inpressive, it wouldn't meet the required acceptance rate for us.
Do those clients pay an annual fee to use the site? Do you keep asking them what their size preferences are only to practically overlook the polled results?
I work for the corporation. We share the metrics with the stakeholders on a regular basis. They don't, or shouldn't have, size preferences. We base the decision on the capabilties of the vistors to the site.
Their desire is to make sure the information presented is viewable on as many clients' machines as possible.
This is a B2B site for the most part, so the criteria may be different for a B2C site. B2C may have even stricter requirements, especially now with netbooks hitting the market in large numbers.
As for screen resolution, the site metrics tell us that 96%+ of the vistors are on 1024x768 or higher, hence the decision to move from 800 to 1024 in the design demensions.
Well, the majority, and vast majority, that repeatedly give a damn to voice an opinion with a poll vote do have size preferences. Are you saying we're wrong for wanting a change? It's a photography site for chrissakes. Do we really give a damn about netbooks? How much viewing, editing, and critiquing will be done on a netbook by a group with a passion for learning and developing their photographic skills?
All I know is that when I was editing my entry for the recent open challenges, I was about to re-size to 720, and felt very disappointed that I had to go down to 640 because the photo didn't look as nice. I am hoping that any change in size is implemented soon.
Perhaps D&L are waiting for the New Year? I know that two years ago, it was at New Year when HDR images were allowed in advanced.
Well, the majority, and vast majority, that repeatedly give a damn to voice an opinion with a poll vote do have size preferences. Are you saying we're wrong for wanting a change? It's a photography site for chrissakes. Do we really give a damn about netbooks? How much viewing, editing, and critiquing will be done on a netbook by a group with a passion for learning and developing their photographic skills?
I'm just saying that just because you want it really really bad doesn't mean it's the best thing for the site.
I'm all for the larger sizes. I was trying to explain the process we go through where I work. It may or may not be the same at DPC.
The point was, just because it is 4 to 1 in favor in a voluntary poll, don't expect that that is all there is to the decision making process.
Well, the majority, and vast majority, that repeatedly give a damn to voice an opinion with a poll vote do have size preferences. Are you saying we're wrong for wanting a change? It's a photography site for chrissakes. Do we really give a damn about netbooks? How much viewing, editing, and critiquing will be done on a netbook by a group with a passion for learning and developing their photographic skills?
I'm just saying that just because you want it really really bad doesn't mean it's the best thing for the site.
I'm all for the larger sizes. I was trying to explain the process we go through where I work. It may or may not be the same at DPC.
The point was, just because it is 4 to 1 in favor in a voluntary poll, don't expect that that is all there is to the decision making process.
I think the point more is: every single time this issue has come up, a significant majority has favored larger image size for DPC. So the issue is, what are they going to DO about it? Why is another poll needed, if they are not going to implement the desires expressed in it? I think people are feeling teased, maybe? I donno...
Well, the majority, and vast majority, that repeatedly give a damn to voice an opinion with a poll vote do have size preferences. Are you saying we're wrong for wanting a change? It's a photography site for chrissakes. Do we really give a damn about netbooks? How much viewing, editing, and critiquing will be done on a netbook by a group with a passion for learning and developing their photographic skills?
I'm just saying that just because you want it really really bad doesn't mean it's the best thing for the site.
I'm all for the larger sizes. I was trying to explain the process we go through where I work. It may or may not be the same at DPC.
The point was, just because it is 4 to 1 in favor in a voluntary poll, don't expect that that is all there is to the decision making process.
I think the point more is: every single time this issue has come up, a significant majority has favored larger image size for DPC. So the issue is, what are they going to DO about it? Why is another poll needed, if they are not going to implement the desires expressed in it? I think people are feeling teased, maybe? I donno...
R.
I don't know either, maybe they are waiting for a higher percentage.
I have to say that recent events from the Australians has me a bit shook up about bigger pictures. I have a picture with commercial appeal that I am thinking about for Best of 2009, but I'll say I now am seriously thinking about not entering it because it wouldn't have a watermark. 800 pixels would make it even worse. If upscaling programs are good enough to take a 640 pixel image and put it on a large sign, how much easier is 800 pixels going to be?
That and the fact that a significant portion of people would have to scroll makes the prospect of even bigger pics less appealing IMO.
If upscaling programs are good enough to take a 640 pixel image and put it on a large sign, how much easier is 800 pixels going to be?
One could also argue that if someone could take a 640pxl photo and blow it up to a billboard, does it really matter what the size is, as they can all be taken and upscaled. In the case of image theft, the issue isn't pixel size, but rather, watermarking... which is a separate issue.
If upscaling programs are good enough to take a 640 pixel image and put it on a large sign, how much easier is 800 pixels going to be?
One could also argue that if someone could take a 640pxl photo and blow it up to a billboard, does it really matter what the size is, as they can all be taken and upscaled. In the case of image theft, the issue isn't pixel size, but rather, watermarking... which is a separate issue.
Good point. Although the people who saw the sign did say it was blurry. So the quality would be improved with a 800 px master. But perhaps you are right and I'm now more of a watermarking proponent than keeping the images small. Still, I don't want to scroll ever. If we go bigger, we'll definitely have to adjust what takes up space above the image.
I have to say that recent events from the Australians has me a bit shook up about bigger pictures. I have a picture with commercial appeal that I am thinking about for Best of 2009, but I'll say I now am seriously thinking about not entering it because it wouldn't have a watermark. 800 pixels would make it even worse. If upscaling programs are good enough to take a 640 pixel image and put it on a large sign, how much easier is 800 pixels going to be?
That and the fact that a significant portion of people would have to scroll makes the prospect of even bigger pics less appealing IMO.
I hear ya, Doc, but we end up right back at nothing is truly safe from unauthorized use online. In my mind, the possibility of an actual TANGIBLE loss is still very insignificant. Sure, they are using your pic, but would they have paid you for it even if it were watermarked? Even the way it is used, the watermark would have had to been very ugly and distracting to make a difference. It still surprises me that they got results that good from a 640 px file. I'd like for D&L to give us what we ask for or tell us no and stop asking.
