This question is answered. Helpful answers available: 2. Correct answers available: 1.


Permlink Replies: 5 - Pages: 1 - Last Post: 27 Oct 23, 13:33 Last Post By: JeffTucker
JeffTucker

Posts: 8,090
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Plain: Image variants
Posted: 26 Oct 23, 16:58
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I would turn off image variants in a skin that's designed to be easy for a new user, and doesn't produce surprises. Invoking variants will quickly multiply the number of output image files, and balloon the size of the upload.

And all for no useful purpose. Variants are a decade-old solution to a decade-old problem. They're unnecessary today.

And all of the presets rely on the shaky WebP processor currently used in jAlbum. The promise of "better quality" is just not true. Don't believe me? Try it with images that have puffy white clouds in an otherwise clear sky. Blocky, blocky, blocky. And if you crank up the WebP Quality to improve the output, the "faster" part of it becomes a lie, instead.
Laza

Posts: 1,627
Registered: 6-Sep-2005
Re: Plain: Image variants
Posted: 27 Oct 23, 08:07   in response to: JeffTucker in response to: JeffTucker
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
No Image variants should appear with the default settings. I have removed that since b3.
jimberry

Posts: 512
Registered: 30-Aug-2004
Re: Plain: Image variants
Posted: 27 Oct 23, 09:09   in response to: Laza in response to: Laza
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Laza wrote:
No Image variants should appear with the default settings. I have removed that since b3.

Should jAlbum core allow skins to "grey-out" the variant options?

Or at least note that not all skins support them.
Laza

Posts: 1,627
Registered: 6-Sep-2005
Re: Plain: Image variants
Posted: 27 Oct 23, 09:44   in response to: jimberry in response to: jimberry
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The skin itself supports variants and I think it's a great way to provide large images where it's needed for zooming and for retina displays. So I would not remove that option altogether.
JeffTucker

Posts: 8,090
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: Plain: Image variants
Posted: 27 Oct 23, 13:20   in response to: jimberry in response to: jimberry
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
jimberry wrote:
Should jAlbum core allow skins to "grey-out" the variant options?

I turn them off in my skins, so the settings box is simply not there. The lightbox script I'm using not only doesn't know what to do with srcsets, it fails miserably when presented with them. So not just useless, but downright catastrophic.

I haven't experimented in a while, but I suspect some masonry thumbnail scripts are also horribly misled by their presence, and do very weird things.

Finally, I don't think there's any skin that actually includes responsive thumbnails. The thumbnail table layout is responsive to viewport size, but the thumbnails themselves are a fixed size (other than some minor expanding and contracting to accommodate a masonry layout). So, there's no reason to include variants for them. Using HiDPI Thumbnails at all times takes care of the double-density displays out there.
JeffTucker

Posts: 8,090
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: Plain: Image variants
Posted: 27 Oct 23, 13:33   in response to: Laza in response to: Laza
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Laza wrote:
The skin itself supports variants and I think it's a great way to provide large images where it's needed for zooming and for retina displays. So I would not remove that option altogether.

Good idea. Include a very large, blocky, low-quality WebP image, and let the site visitor zoom in on it so that he can see just how bad it is.

"Increase the WebP quality." To get the same quality as an equivalent JPG, you end up with an image file that's even larger than the JPG. So if you want to include huge images for zooming, use JPG, not the jAlbum core default of WebP.

I don't have a Retina display to experiment with, but my understanding is that they were invented to improve the appearance of small page elements, like icons and thumbnails. I'd be curious to know if anyone can see the difference between a large, "fill the screen" regular image and a double-density image shown in the same space.
Legend
Forum admins
Helpful Answer
Correct Answer

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in all forums