I agree that there is much to be gained from learning to make appropriately sized files.however this behaviour is unfluffy.
*waves hand and covers the board in dew and crystals*
(*waves hand and covers the board in dew and crystals*
bleepbloop,
Wed 31 May 2006, 18:54,
archived)
gah!my eyes! it BURNS, burns like johnsons baby shampoo.
No more tears? No more fucking tears? You 'avin a larf?
*rages*
(No more tears? No more fucking tears? You 'avin a larf?
*rages*
lazygamer VS tittybiscuits,
Wed 31 May 2006, 18:56,
archived)
Peronally......although I like to see pictures well optimised, I don't see the problem with a 60KB image here and there.
The 50KB mentioned in the FAQ is really a guide, not an absolute limit. No mod is going to link a picture for being 60KB. A guide of 200KB for animations is a resonable target size I think, with 250KB being a cut off point.
If your animation is too big or complex to fit into 250KB, it's probably better off being kept as a movie file/flash animation and linked to.
The majority of the board may have broadband, but if image size imits were taken away and everybody posted 1MB gifs (with a dozen 500KB woo yay reply animations for each) it would make even the faster broadband connections creak and groan like dial-up.
(The 50KB mentioned in the FAQ is really a guide, not an absolute limit. No mod is going to link a picture for being 60KB. A guide of 200KB for animations is a resonable target size I think, with 250KB being a cut off point.
If your animation is too big or complex to fit into 250KB, it's probably better off being kept as a movie file/flash animation and linked to.
The majority of the board may have broadband, but if image size imits were taken away and everybody posted 1MB gifs (with a dozen 500KB woo yay reply animations for each) it would make even the faster broadband connections creak and groan like dial-up.
Mystery_Bob,
Wed 31 May 2006, 19:26,
archived)
