TESTING ... LINK TO LARGE IMAGE ... JUST TRYING SOMETHING

Snoredog · Post by **Snoredog** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:01 pm

Use of a large image like that is about as annoying as typing in a topic in all CAPS!!!

Arizona-Willie · Post by **Arizona-Willie** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:18 pm

Sorry but I warned you in the subject. It is only a 200K file ... not that big by todays standards.

If a large image bugs you .... you shouldn't have clicked on the subject.

Most folks are on cable modems these days and a file like that is no big deal to download.

Sorry if it offfended you but like I said ... I warned you in the subject line that it had a large image.

echo · Post by **echo** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:45 pm

Hey Willie - sometimes ya gotta take Snoredog with a grain of salt

I think what he meant by size was the physical size on the screen....

Offerocker · Post by **Offerocker** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:52 pm

I must say, that it IS easy to read!
Glad your test worked!

Arizona-Willie · Post by **Arizona-Willie** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:21 pm

I was surprised it showed up that big myself. I was hoping it would be large enough to read easily but I didn't know the message board would expand to fill the screen like that.

When I entered the message and did a preview it didn't do that. I thought it wasn't going to work because it wasn't very easy to read in the preview. I don't remember clicking on submit but I suppose I did at some point in the process.

Personally I liked the result. It does make it easy for people to read. Although I understand that someone on a dial up connection might not be happy. However, like I said the pic is only a 200 k file so it shouldn't be too bad for even a dial up to download.

My intention was to fix it so I could upload pics like that for people to evaluate the reports. I have some days that have some crazy reports with very high AHI and some days with O2 sats below 90% over 30% of the time.

Oh well, if it is considered a bad bad thing to post such images I won't.

echo · Post by **echo** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:45 pm

I think it's OK - it's just the width is too wide. Some poeople may have small screens, and it's really annoying to drag the screen left and right to try to see the whole thing. That's what I mean by too big. The size in KB of the file is NOT too large!

So what I would suggest - the format is good, but move the info on the right hand side underneath the stuff on the left... that way it's all stacked on top of each other, and it will fit better on the screen. You see what I mean?

I think it's excellent to post info like this, and graphical is always easier to interpret that text .. I also find it easier to read. ... so don't get discouraged!!!!!

ozij · Post by **ozij** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:49 pm

Willie,
For testing purposes you can use the preview button which is just to the right of the submit. It will let you see the way the message looks after you post it - you don't have to submit the message in order to see how it will look to others.

O.

Slinky · Post by **Slinky** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:21 pm

Willie, I have slow ole dial up too. One of the prices of living out in a peaceful, quite rural area.

It didn't take long to load at all. Yeah, I hate the extra width when I have to scroll to read the text, mumble, grumble - BUT - I also LIKE being able to easily read the graph's text.

Heck, I still haven't the SLIGHTEST idea how to scan something to post it, much less to actually be able to post it!!! Duh.

Arizona-Willie · Post by **Arizona-Willie** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:19 pm

Ozij I did do the preview thing and, strangely, it did not show the message full width as happens when viewing the message on the board.

Perhaps I messed up somehow ( gasp !! imagine that )

I < should > have been working through an old 17" square screen monitor that I use when I do web pages but just wasn't thinking and it didn't dawn on me that what I see on my 22" monitor at 1680 X 1050 resolution would not look good on everyone's screen.

I think I was more focused on how to get things all to show up on one screen and take a screen shot of it to convert to a graphics format in order to post it on photobucket.

Takes several steps to put that picture together.

I think I will try again in the next couple of days ... perhaps using 800 X 600 resolution. Don't know if I can get it to be legible at that resolution though.

The only failure is the failure to try.

ozij · Post by **ozij** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:46 pm

I had no idea how much you know....

At any rate, FWIW, I use a 17" monitor, and found that 800*600 resolution, while a bit wide, did get things I wanted to show onto the screen.

And when necessary, I also used painter (and irfan view) to focus on specific parts in more detail....

O.

echo · Post by **echo** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:21 am

Yes, i LOVE Irfanview. Download it here:
http://www.irfanview.com/

You can't do all the fancy photoshop stuff but it works and it's easy to use! And it opens quickly!

Willie - any smaller resolution and it might indeed be harder to read. I still say stack 'em and rack 'em.

jsmythe · Post by **jsmythe** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:35 am

The graph was easy to read Willie, but with my 22" screen, I still had to drag it back and forth to be able to read the posts by others under your post with the graphs. I also have dial-up But it downloaded just fine, almost instantly.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:22 am

image came up fast and on an apple (been using one for about 8 months) it's easy to scroll around if you use two fingers on the touchpad. By the way... does anyone know if xPAP software works on macs??

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:31 am

Hi Willie,

What has worked for me in the past to avoid wide screens is to upload image to photobucket.com and then tell it to generate "img" - then copy that "img" code and paste it here. Select the pasted stuff and click on the "Img" button in the composing window. Similar concept with URLs (except select and use "URL" button).

*Usually* that works but occasionally it hasn't (for URLs) and I haven't figured out why. I get PMs telling me it's annoying and how to do it but no suggestions as to why it sometimes works and occasionally doesn't! Guess I'll have to go back to using "tinyURL".

Mindy

TESTING ... LINK TO LARGE IMAGE ... JUST TRYING SOMETHING

TESTING ... LINK TO LARGE IMAGE ... JUST TRYING SOMETHING

Large image

Surprised

ozij