If this isn't frontpagedthen something is seriously wrong.
(
sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally,
Thu 22 Apr 2010, 15:46,
archived)
It's superbbut I think the width limit for the front page is 400.
(
boris the spider,
Thu 22 Apr 2010, 15:48,
archived)
I was going to post the small one. But it looks a bit squished.
Airman Gabber Living life like a 70's BBC presenter,
Thu 22 Apr 2010, 15:52,
archived)
Hmm, it does tooI think the FP needs to be redesigned. Sometimes 400 pixels really isn't enough.
Top work though
(Top work though
boris the spider,
Thu 22 Apr 2010, 15:55,
archived)
I think 400 is up from the original limits.And the old modem days of tiny filesize limits.
( Airman Gabber Living life like a 70's BBC presenter,
Thu 22 Apr 2010, 15:58,
archived)
you can probably track exactly when it changedby looking in anyone's b3tards account and seeing when the width of their pictures suddenly jumped from 280 to 400...
( boris the spider,
Thu 22 Apr 2010, 16:04,
archived)
first 280px wasn't enough, now 400px isn't enoughsome people are never happy
(,
Thu 22 Apr 2010, 15:58,
archived)
They'll be allowing Flash animations and youtube posts next.*tchoh*
( Airman Gabber Living life like a 70's BBC presenter,
Thu 22 Apr 2010, 16:01,
archived)
damn rightin theory it should be possible to make the front page flexible so that the pictures go up to some larger maximum if something wider gets FP'd - say 600 pixels or so - but if not it stays down at 400 if they want. how many people still browse with less than 1000 wide? (they can tell that by looking at the server logs, easy.) the space can be taken from the weblogs bit if necessary.
but it might actually be a horrific job to make it dynamically resize like that. depends how the code was built, i guess.
(but it might actually be a horrific job to make it dynamically resize like that. depends how the code was built, i guess.
boris the spider,
Thu 22 Apr 2010, 16:03,
archived)