Let's set some sensible defaults for image styles #603
Comments
|
should we be changing the json files too? |
We only need to change the JSON files that are included with Image module ( I've been thinking more about the sizes that we should provide out of the box. Over in #378 (comment), we've been discussing the part of Picture module that we should port to Backdrop. In that thread, we talked about making images automatically provide a 2x size for high-DPI displays. That could make trying to accomodate for HiDPI displays now a bit premature. I'm also worried about defining our sizes based on our current front-end theme (and for a particular layout). I'd feel better if we chose more arbitrary sizes that would work well (but perhaps not perfect) in a variety of themes and layouts. e.g medium at 480px and large at 960px Thoughts? |
|
I updated the issue summary, I recommend we change Large to a more standard size, something like 960 wide. We may need to also add some CSS (to image module? to all themes?) so max-width for the large image style is set not to let these large images overrun our default front-end layouts though. |
|
Do we take under account mobile and common resolutions when setting these defaults? |
|
How do you mean? |
|
Like, "Large" should fit in the most common desktop/laptop screen/resolution, "Medium" in the most common tablet screen/resolution (landscape I guess) and the "Small" in the most common phone resolution. Does that make sense? |
|
No, that doesn't make sense. The "Large" image style will be providing the home-page-slider-image on all three devices. (We're not changing image styles per device). What we need to decide on is what we mean by "large". Then we set that. Then we make sure the "Large" image style resizes correctly (max-width: 100%) even on smaller devices. |
|
That said, those three sizes might just happen to coincidentally make good default sizes for the images ;) |
Ok, that's what I meant. Not per device though. Per device type. |
|
Right, we're not changing image styles per device type either. I think that's what breakpoint/picture module tried to do in D8. But all that hootenanny is yet to be proven in the real world, so it's too soon to do anything like that in core. Let's see what proves itself in contrib for responsive images and for now, we'll do the same thing as D7 as far as image styles go. Just with better default styles :) Do you have an opinion as to what sizes we should use for large/medium? |
Not really, was just asking to see what would qualify a size as "sensible". That's all. |
|
Why not bypass the hardcoding of something that's relative (size: large, med, small) and name the sizes the numbers that they represent, eg '800' '450' etc. Adding, identifying and referencing becomes a whole lot easier off the bat. And abstracting to a pre-defined relative scale requires everyone shuffle/redefine sizes according to that should they not match.. If a scalar pattern of 'small med large' or an absurdity like, 'Cmaj' fit a project, make us add it ourselves. "Add medium-small. No, call it extra-medium-small. |
|
+1 for (800x600 for example) image style naming scheme |
Yeah, what @Lowell20 said. With the y-dimension. It is, arguably, the most sensible in practice. |
|
I personally like it the way is now. Perhaps what we could do is auto-generate and append the dimensions to the style name on display (the selection drop-down in the "Manage display" page for example or the "Style name" column in the style list page). |
|
We can change the dimensions of our sizes for new installs, but if we rename the styles entirely, it'd be an API change for modules that expect the sizes thumbnail, medium, and large. I also like thumbnail, medium, large for the out-of-box presets because you're not allowed to change the machine names of your styles and you're also not allowed to delete default styles. So whatever we name it in the machine name, the user will be stuck with it. |
|
explained well |
Because when you change your thumbnail from 100x100 to 90x90 its name still says 100x100, but that's now wrong :( If we call it thumbnail you can make it whatever size you like without having to change the name. (Admittedly, this was more of a problem back before we had image style names, and changing the name of a style broke all the uses of that style on your site). I still think having human-understandable names out of the box is a huge advantage, but I agree that "Large" and "Medium" may not be good human readable names. I'd be happy to switch them to "Full" and "Teaser" to more closely line up with view modes (where they are actually used). That would make sense to everyone, and it would be clear that when you add new ones they don't need to fit in the same scale. Anyway, I digress... If we want to debate changing the names, that's a 2.x issue (maybe someone create one?) and I want to make our image styles less dumb in 1.x :) So back to the issue at hand - how about this: |
Fair enough.
Good point. My approach is to add new styles rather than change them, but I recognize that's not always the case.
'Thumbnail' is far more practical than 'extra small'. It's the arbitrarily set relative scale of S, M, L that is limiting and quickly becomes useless and in-the-way in projects that require a greater variety of sizes.
Yeah, keep the large low to help lead people to think about the quantity and range of sizes for their site. |
|
Starting work on this issue. |
|
I'm still up for including this in 1.1.0 if we can get it done in the next couple of days. Any takers? |
|
meeeee! |
|
Great, thanks! This was the last issue for Backdrop 1.1.0! |
The "Large" image style is not large. 480x480 is not large, that's more like medium
I recommend we adjust as follows:
The width of the wider column in the two-column and two-column-flipped layouts is 615px. If we set the "large" image style to be 615x2 it (max-width: 100%) will look great on retina displays.
No upgrade path needed :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: