Re^2: Larger profile pic than 80KB? (Updated)

As usual this discussion is missing the real point, IMAO°

It's not if 80kb are enough, but if settings from the end 90s are sufficiently user friendly nowadays.

I'm not sure if it's even possible to set my smartphone to such "small" camera pics.

And a "new" website would do the downsizing on server side to avoid bothering the user.

Since changing the code here is too much of a hassle, we should consider providing a help text explaining how to easily down scale pics to 80kb.

Like a one liner for convert on Linux...

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

°) in my arrogant opinion...

update

In hindsight, rescaling could probably already be done on client side nowadays., with JavaScript.

A current Firefox so fat that I have trouble running it on an old netbook, so there must be some included lib for that. (Emacs as operating system jokes are for grandmas ;)

Quick search found https://imagekit.io/blog/how-to-resize-image-in-javascript/ (tldr)

Comment on Re^2: Larger profile pic than 80KB? (Updated) Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Larger profile pic than 80KB? (Updated) by cavac (Prior) on Oct 20, 2023 at 14:04 UTC
Of course, you are right. 80kB is quite a low limit these days. But even modern up-to-date web platforms have relatively low limits on profile pictures that are hard to match with a modern phone camera without editing. For example, Mastodon has 2MB with a max size of 400x400, mostly to reduce network traffic and server storage. Every time a user looks into their timeline, the browser has to fetch all profile images from every user displayed in the timeline. A server might have to store hundred, thousands or (if the platform takes off) maybe even millions of profile pictures. I think most of the bigger websites these days do (at least) the cropping on client side. It's the stuff where you "upload" a picture of your face and then it asks you to resize and position it so your face fills the rectangle or circle. This, too, saves on network traffic and a huge amount of server load. An alternative/addition could even be some kind of avatar generator for those monks that don't like to upload a real photo. Something like this one. PerlMonks XP is useless? Not anymore: XPD - Do more with your PerlMonks XP	[reply]
Re^4: Larger profile pic than 80KB? (Updated) by LanX (Saint) on Oct 20, 2023 at 20:08 UTC
> Of course, you are right. 80kB is quite a low limit these days. That's not what I meant. (Maybe I should have been clearer) I'm happy with 80kB I said the real question is to help the user downsizing their pics. Even if we allowed 2mb today, who knows what people expect in 5 years. Terabytes? Holograms? Scratch&Sniff? ° Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) see Wikisyntax for the Monastery} °) I personally want individual User PEZ drops flipped into my mouth.	[reply]
Re^3: Larger profile pic than 80KB? (Updated) by Bod (Parson) on Oct 22, 2023 at 00:07 UTC
It's not if 80kb are enough, but if settings from the end 90s are sufficiently user friendly nowadays Spot on LanX The Monastery is wonderful for the content, community and cooperation that exists here. But I do sometimes wonder if Noah is wandering the archaic corridors. If Perl is to be the language of choice for programmers in 25 years time, I very much doubt it will be The Monastery that will entice them. Having said that, they tell me "retro" is in fashion... Edit - missing verb added - thanks to kcott for spotting the mistake.	[reply]