| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2005 08:48:26 AM · #201 |
Knowing that roughly half the voters would have to scroll to see my portrait oriented shots, I would be very leary of an increased size. We already lose points with some for having a bad border, not having a title that "fits" (or spelled correctly), having an image smaller than 640, etc. Can you imagine the backlash if we make people scroll to see it? (I say this only half jokingly . . .)
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 10:16:56 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
One curiosity - you mention Firefox as the browser used for testing. Why Firefox? I'm sure it's similar in nature to other browsers in use, but Internet Explorer is still the leading browser by a wide margin.
|
Maybe he mentioned it because that's what he uses. It's the same for IE, anyway. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:54:09 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
That's fantastic. I can't wait for the results. I had no idea so many people were using laptops only. :D
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
FYI: Langdon has put some code in place to track the screen resolutions of voters. We'll post an update once we have a reasonable sample size.
~Terry |
|
Many are not using laptops but are using LCD monitors. At the consumer end, most of those also max out at 1024x768.
Here are the results so far, sorted by popularity. The bolded lines represent resolutions at which Firefox 1.5 in full-screen//F11 mode cannot display an 800 pixel tall image without scrolling (allowing 89 pixels for tabs, the status bar and the XP Start menu):
1024x768: 78
1280x1024: 40
1152x864: 10
800x600: 7
1600x1200: 6
1400x1050: 6
1280x960: 6
1280x800: 6
1440x900: 5
1280x854: 3
1920x1200: 3
1280x768: 3
1680x1050: 2
1792x1344: 1
Of the 176 users represented above, 107 (61%) cannot display an 800 pixel tall image in their browsers without scrolling. Even disregarding the 800x600 users (who already have to scroll so arguably wouldn't object if they had to scroll more), 57% of voters would be negatively affected by this change. 1024x768 appears nearly twice as often as its next competitor.
The popularity of affordable consumer-grade flat-panel monitors mean that many of these users have locked themselves into 1024x768 for the forseeable future.
Until these numbers change drastically, I don't really see how we could in good conscience migrate to an 800 pixel vertical limit.
~Terry |
If I add up your numbers I get 78 users @ 1024x768, and 95 users that won't have to scroll, or do already. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:57:40 PM · #204 |
| From a business standpoint with almost half the participants using resolutions that are not practical for larger size images it would not be wise to upgrade at this point, as Terry has indicated. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:05:27 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
That's fantastic. I can't wait for the results. I had no idea so many people were using laptops only. :D
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
FYI: Langdon has put some code in place to track the screen resolutions of voters. We'll post an update once we have a reasonable sample size.
~Terry |
|
Many are not using laptops but are using LCD monitors. At the consumer end, most of those also max out at 1024x768.
Here are the results so far, sorted by popularity. The bolded lines represent resolutions at which Firefox 1.5 in full-screen//F11 mode cannot display an 800 pixel tall image without scrolling (allowing 89 pixels for tabs, the status bar and the XP Start menu):
1024x768: 78
1280x1024: 40
1152x864: 10
800x600: 7
1600x1200: 6
1400x1050: 6
1280x960: 6
1280x800: 6
1440x900: 5
1280x854: 3
1920x1200: 3
1280x768: 3
1680x1050: 2
1792x1344: 1
Of the 176 users represented above, 107 (61%) cannot display an 800 pixel tall image in their browsers without scrolling. Even disregarding the 800x600 users (who already have to scroll so arguably wouldn't object if they had to scroll more), 57% of voters would be negatively affected by this change. 1024x768 appears nearly twice as often as its next competitor.
The popularity of affordable consumer-grade flat-panel monitors mean that many of these users have locked themselves into 1024x768 for the forseeable future.
Until these numbers change drastically, I don't really see how we could in good conscience migrate to an 800 pixel vertical limit.
~Terry |
If I add up your numbers I get 78 users @ 1024x768, and 95 users that won't have to scroll, or do already. |
be aware that in most browsers, DPC is set up so that people with 1050, 1024, 960, and 854 would still have to scroll to see an 800 height image.. 960 and 854 significantly.
I still have to scroll on 640 height images @ 1280x960.. albeit a very tiny bit.
Also.. to be fair, I've been a proponent of getting rid of the top voting bar for a long time now. There's absolutely no need for it.
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 13:13:55. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:53:44 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Also.. to be fair, I've been a proponent of getting rid of the top voting bar for a long time now. There's absolutely no need for it. |
How about moving the title below the picture too ... then people who don't want to be influenced by the title don't see it first thing, but can scroll down if they do want to see it. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:55:47 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Also.. to be fair, I've been a proponent of getting rid of the top voting bar for a long time now. There's absolutely no need for it. |
How about moving the title below the picture too ... then people who don't want to be influenced by the title don't see it first thing, but can scroll down if they do want to see it. |
I wouldn't have any major objection to that. I think the title at the top seems more "professional" to some, but to be honest, I have no care either way. It would definitely help with scrolling.
I'm also not one that cares about 640 vs. 800 pixels much either.. one way or the other, it's all just photography on a website for fun |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:56:06 PM · #208 |
there sure are a lot of suggestions in a thread titled "Let's leave it like it is...."
not calling anyone out, I just find it funny. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:58:00 PM · #209 |
| While the word Title is still hot - how about if the title is only accessible on demand? There could be a little icon for the title, and if the voter really wants to know what the title is, s/he can click it or hover over it ... |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:59:03 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by xion:
While the word Title is still hot - how about if the title is only accessible on demand? There could be a little icon for the title, and if the voter really wants to know what the title is, s/he can click it or hover over it ... |
What would be the reason for this? I'm very curious! |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:59:34 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
there sure are a lot of suggestions in a thread titled "Let's leave it like it is...."
not calling anyone out, I just find it funny. |
I think it's called a thread hijacking...hehe. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 02:00:50 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by xion:
While the word Title is still hot - how about if the title is only accessible on demand? There could be a little icon for the title, and if the voter really wants to know what the title is, s/he can click it or hover over it ... |
What would be the reason for this? I'm very curious! |
Because sometimes, I have found the title to be so long and annoying that I don't really look at the photography like I would have done without the paragraph before it. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 02:01:08 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by megatherian:
there sure are a lot of suggestions in a thread titled "Let's leave it like it is...."
not calling anyone out, I just find it funny. |
I think it's called a thread hijacking...hehe. |
I think in this case, it's not so much hijacking as it is a seemingly natural progression of the arguements into ideas. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 02:35:46 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by megatherian:
there sure are a lot of suggestions in a thread titled "Let's leave it like it is...."
not calling anyone out, I just find it funny. |
I think it's called a thread hijacking...hehe. |
I think in this case, it's not so much hijacking as it is a seemingly natural progression of the arguements into ideas. |
Yep -- perceived problems have been presented, this thread provides many parameters the problems need to be solved within. Offering suggestions is just an attempt to solve the perceived problems while considering the parameters presented.
It sure beats the 'works fine, don't mess with it' mentality of those who don't perceive the problems. Which in turn is much better than perceiving the problem and not wanting solutions because 'it doesn't affect me'.
Suggestions are good, change is good -- provided it is a step forward. Not changing is the same as moving backwards -- everything around will continue to change, including the user base and their skill level.
David
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 06:02:31 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
... Here are the results so far, sorted by popularity. The bolded lines represent resolutions at which Firefox 1.5 ... |
It's good to see some hard facts coming forward. Thanks for getting a handle on them.
One curiosity - you mention Firefox as the browser used for testing. Why Firefox? I'm sure it's similar in nature to other browsers in use, but Internet Explorer is still the leading browser by a wide margin.
Browser stats gets picked up in normal website usage statistics as well in case anyone feels a need to dispute it. ;^) |
It's what I'm running. The overhead for IE is very close if not exactly the same.
I'm probably losing a few extra pixels for my tab bar, but once with the upcoming release of IE7 that will become an issue in that browser as well.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 06:15:19 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Here are the results so far, sorted by popularity. The bolded lines represent resolutions at which Firefox 1.5 in full-screen//F11 mode cannot display an 800 pixel tall image without scrolling (allowing 89 pixels for tabs, the status bar and the XP Start menu):
1024x768: 78
1280x1024: 40
1152x864: 10
800x600: 7
1600x1200: 6
1400x1050: 6
1280x960: 6
1280x800: 6
1440x900: 5
1280x854: 3
1920x1200: 3
1280x768: 3
1680x1050: 2
1792x1344: 1
Of the 176 users represented above, 107 (61%) cannot display an 800 pixel tall image in their browsers without scrolling. Even disregarding the 800x600 users (who already have to scroll so arguably wouldn't object if they had to scroll more), 57% of voters would be negatively affected by this change. 1024x768 appears nearly twice as often as its next competitor.
The popularity of affordable consumer-grade flat-panel monitors mean that many of these users have locked themselves into 1024x768 for the forseeable future.
Until these numbers change drastically, I don't really see how we could in good conscience migrate to an 800 pixel vertical limit.
~Terry |
If I add up your numbers I get 78 users @ 1024x768, and 95 users that won't have to scroll, or do already. |
Perhaps I should clarify better.
The bolded lines don't mean the user would have to scroll down to see the image. They mean that the image would be sufficiently large that it would be impossible for the viewer to see the entire image at once.
Assuming the user has hit F11, and that my calculation of 89 pixels of browser overhead is correct, a 640 image needs a minimum vertical resolution of 729 pixels to be able to be displayed on the screen at once. In our sample above, 7 voters (the ones running 800x600) were below that threshold, and I already split them out in my calculations and discussion.
Any resolutions listed in bold are currently able to view all of a 640-high image on their screen at once, but would not be able to do so with an 800-high image. That's 100 users who would lose the ability to view a full image, compared to 69 who would not lose that ability and 7 who already don't have it.
I hope that's clearer?
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 06:19:28 PM · #217 |
I think its a moot point if you can see a bigger photo or not ... While you all think it needs to be larger... there are people who refuse to use over 800 x 600 as they need glasses to see anything else.
SO...we can live with what we have now.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 06:40:41 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by di53:
I think its a moot point if you can see a bigger photo or not ... While you all think it needs to be larger... there are people who refuse to use over 800 x 600 as they need glasses to see anything else.
SO...we can live with what we have now. |
...they could always turn on the handicap feature in windows...
jk
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 18:40:54. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 06:43:45 PM · #219 |
not likely to happen...
But its up to two people what happens on this site... its up to them and not us as it is their site, I give them credit for lettingus have as much as we have right now. I'm happy with DPC the way it is, when i'm not i'll look for something else, but that wont happen for a long long time
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by di53:
I think its a moot point if you can see a bigger photo or not ... While you all think it needs to be larger... there are people who refuse to use over 800 x 600 as they need glasses to see anything else.
SO...we can live with what we have now. |
...they could always turn on the handicap feature in windows...
jk |
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 06:49:02 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by di53:
not likely to happen...
But its up to two people what happens on this site... its up to them and not us as it is their site, I give them credit for lettingus have as much as we have right now. I'm happy with DPC the way it is, when i'm not i'll look for something else, but that wont happen for a long long time
[quote=Brent_Ward] [quote=di53] I think its a moot point if you can see a bigger photo or not ... While you all think it needs to be larger... there are people who refuse to use over 800 x 600 as they need glasses to see anything else.
SO...we can live with what we have now. |
Are you saying paying customers shouldn't have a say in the service they subscribe to?
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 07:02:28 PM · #221 |
I would personally be hesitatant to post larger images, it just leaves more opportunity for people to steal images which are easier to print and reproduce. I already post images larger than I would normally do on this site. On top of it none of the images in the challenges even have copyright notices or watermarks on them. I am sure there are many opinions on this but this is just mine.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 09:06:29 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
... Are you saying paying customers shouldn't have a say in the service they subscribe to? |
I wish I had a say in the cable TV service I subscribe to. Or in how my ISP operates. Or my electric service, or water & sewer, etc. I'd even like to have my morning paper delivered earlier. For consumers, often the only way to have a say is to vote with their feet.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 09:18:04 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Are you saying paying customers shouldn't have a say in the service they subscribe to? |
Right -- you agreed to pay a certain amount and they agreed to provide you with a specific service. I didn't read anything in the User Service Agreement saying they would change the service to meet your needs. In what other business does the act of making a retail purchase confer on the purchaser the right to determine anything about how the business is run?
Now, if they suddenly took away something they'd previously provided -- like free access to and use of the site by the broadest possible base of interested photographers -- then there'd be cause to complain to customer service ... |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 09:26:50 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
... Are you saying paying customers shouldn't have a say in the service they subscribe to? |
I wish I had a say in the cable TV service I subscribe to. Or in how my ISP operates. Or my electric service, or water & sewer, etc. I'd even like to have my morning paper delivered earlier. For consumers, often the only way to have a say is to vote with their feet. |
Well, I don't think it would really have to come to that. I guess the thing is that even though some of want change, and can be vocal about it, I don't think we'd leave over it really.
However, this site doesn't seem to follow a real "money making" philosophy. If that were the case then they would have put in Ads long ago. It's built as more of a community system, and in that vein seem more in tune with it's "customers" than a traditional business.
Another example that I could relate is a site I used to be active on called ArsTechnica. They started out mostly as a small technology blog and some forum stuff, interested college kids mostly. As the site gained popularity the added ads to their front page, and then had to get interstitials for their articles, changed half of their forums to paid member only, and started sharging for other services such as .pdf downloads of their technical articles.
Since the point is to keep it going, not to make huge amounts of moolah for the admins (but maybe keep fed and watered though), the whole dynamic changes.
D&L are sometimes directly involved with the users, and genuinely care about their users experience, not the money they give them. (though I'm sure money is nice too) Cable companies just want to soak up as much as they can and jack up rates for no reason just to get more. Not really an accurate comparison there in my eyes.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 09:38:05 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Right -- you agreed to pay a certain amount and they agreed to provide you with a specific service. I didn't read anything in the User Service Agreement saying they would change the service to meet your needs. In what other business does the act of making a retail purchase confer on the purchaser the right to determine anything about how the business is run?
Now, if they suddenly took away something they'd previously provided -- like free access to and use of the site by the broadest possible base of interested photographers -- then there'd be cause to complain to customer service ... |
This is not really on-base. Sure companies provide a service, and we as consumers choose services. But all companies experience what is knows as "churn", meaning users who switch because of dissatisfaction with another similar service. I'd say that this site has very high "customer loyalty", and that is always a derivative of customer service. Whether that means giving the people what they want, or making them feel good about bad things that happened.
Losing a customer because of a lousy experience costs 10 times the amount to the company than it did to gain that customer in the first place. This is because a cust will on average tell 10 or more people about a bad experience, while only telling 1-2 of a good experience. (yes, I have been forced to read too many Harvard business papers)
Then you have to consider the service. In this realm, I have no other knowledge of any othe site like this one (in it's entirety), mostly because of the community aspect, but also the openly user-voted weekly challenges.
I think there could be a case where, if this site did not update and change in the future, that some members here could "churn" over to a directly competing site. It would be hard to re-produce, but it is possible. Say if photo.net or fredmiranda.com or something decided that they wanted to start something like this, purely for money, and offering tons of bells and whistles to get it done, and advertising to pay for it all.
|
|
