MozillaZine

Automatic Image Resizing Checked In

Sunday January 19th, 2003

David Illsley writes: "Yesterday saw the checkin of automatic image resizing (bug 73322) to the Mozilla trunk. When turned on (it's disabled by default) it shrinks any image that is bigger than the window to make the whole image visible. When this is done, the cursor over the image changes to tell you that if you click, the image is restored to full size. You get the best of both worlds! This currently doesn't have a prefs UI in Phoenix but if you put the appropriate pref in you user.js file, it works just fine. This is one of the few features in IE that I have seen and liked and it's great that Moz now has it too. Thanks guys."

To enable this feature in Mozilla, go to Edit > Preferences > Appearance and check the 'Enable automatic image resizing' box. If you're using Phoenix, add the following line to your prefs.js or user.js file:

user_pref("browser.enable_automatic_image_resizing", true);

Phoenix Help has more information about editing Phoenix configuration files.


#1 Feature not a Bug?

by ken

Sunday January 19th, 2003 2:14 PM

Reply to this message

Wait, wasn't the general concensus about this IE "feature" that it was a pretty stupid? I mean, tabbed browsing, image blocking, popup blocking, one-click Proxy Settings (with Prefs bar)--these are "features" that are actually useful; they're actually real reasons that I switched to Moz (Phoenix). But, I've never gone to look at an image in my browser wishing, "Gee, I wish that this image was smaller and grainier looking...when, oh when is the Mozilla group going to let me see my images in less detail than the site auther intended?" Do the programmers have time to kill? ;-)

#2 Re: Feature not a Bug?

by jrepin <jlp@holodeck1.com>

Sunday January 19th, 2003 2:24 PM

Reply to this message

You can always disable this if you don't like it. I myself don't use it at all. But I know a lot of people who liked this feature in IE. Mostly they had small monitors and hate scrolling around the picture. This feature is also much better implemented then in IE in my opinion.

#4 I like it!

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Sunday January 19th, 2003 2:36 PM

Reply to this message

Hmmm, I like it! Espessially on my 1024*768 notebook.

For example: <http://www.distrowatch.co…drake-konqueror-large.png>

#7 Good

by thebare

Sunday January 19th, 2003 3:20 PM

Reply to this message

I like this feature! And I don't see how anyone can complain about low-fat features such as this one...

#8 Re: Good

by jgraham

Sunday January 19th, 2003 4:24 PM

Reply to this message

You underestimate the ability of people to complain about things just because. Complaining about features just because "I don't need that" is stupid - often other people will need them. In this case, the feature will have zero effect on your life if you don't enable it. Even with it enabled, the interface is totally transparent. Personally I can see the argument for adding to this with a 'page zoom' feature to complement text zoom (i.e. resize pages and the images). For single image pages this could be used to set the appropriate combination of resize related distortion and scrolling annoyingness.

#43 Re: Useful for PDA's

by wtanksley

Monday January 20th, 2003 9:35 AM

Reply to this message

This feature is beign complained about because of how bad it is in IE. I go through all the clicking to get the app screenshot, I then have to hover over the image for a while until both image-icons appear, then mouse down to the bottom one and click it.

Yuck.

#3 Re: Feature not a Bug?

by mbokil

Sunday January 19th, 2003 2:24 PM

Reply to this message

That 'feature' drives me absolutely nuts and is the first thing I turn off when I am forced to use IE on a windows machine. ugh. almost as bad as Clippy. "You appear to be browsing the web, would you like me to start distorting all your images?"

#5 Re: Feature not a Bug?

by wtmcgee

Sunday January 19th, 2003 2:45 PM

Reply to this message

that's why it's optional. don't use it if you don't want to.

#6 Re: Feature not a Bug?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday January 19th, 2003 2:55 PM

Reply to this message

"Wait, wasn't the general concensus about this IE 'feature' that it was a pretty stupid?"

The feature's good, it's just that IE's implementation of it sucks like a tornado.

"But, I've never gone to look at an image in my browser wishing, 'Gee, I wish that this image was smaller and grainier looking...when, oh when is the Mozilla group going to let me see my images in less detail than the site auther intended?'"

I find this feature works quite well for photographs. It's not so great for screenshots and pictures containing a lot of text.

Alex

#13 Useful for PDA's

by Malc

Sunday January 19th, 2003 10:41 PM

Reply to this message

I often wish for this. For example, the forums on <http://www.clubb5.com> allow people to post pictures. Sometimes people post pictures that are too big, which ends up making the page wider than my window. I could almost live with scrolling just to view the picture... but the the wider window means all the text on the screen also goes off the right edge. If the browser would resize that picture down I wouldn't have to scroll to read. It would also be useful for when people send me those digital camera pictures that are twice my screen resolution.

#15 Re: Useful for PDA's

by macpeep

Monday January 20th, 2003 12:00 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, but Mozilla doesn't work in PDA's, whereas Pocket IE does and HAS the image scaling feature ("fit to page" - it's actually a page scaling feature at the same time).

#36 I confused you

by Malc

Monday January 20th, 2003 7:06 AM

Reply to this message

Hey, I think my subject title confused. It was a hang over from a different post. As it stands I have a Palm Pilot, which AFAIK doesn't run Pocket IE (thankfully). What I was interested in was whether this feature could be useful for resizing a web page on my desktop to 160x160 before saving it from Mozilla for upload to my PDA. You see, there are occasions when I'm reading a web page on my computer and think that it would useful to put it on my PDA (e.g. directions, weather, maps, etc). This would be a lot less effort than things like AvantGo. Oh, and I don't have or want a wireless connection for mobile browsing.

#38 Only resize on display

by sconest

Monday January 20th, 2003 8:23 AM

Reply to this message

From short moment I tested this feature before disabling it, it looks like the images are only resized on display. If you save the image, you still get the original image.

#35 Bad title - was Useful for PDA's

by Malc

Monday January 20th, 2003 7:00 AM

Reply to this message

What's up with this web site when using Mozilla? This is the first time I've posted here. Now I find that every page I go to Mozilla pops up a dialog asking me which user name I want to use in the form. All the user names suggested are the titles I've used in previous posts, just like the parent in this thread. Quite annoying.

#37 Password Manager in MozillaZine

by peterlairo <Peter@Lairo.com>

Monday January 20th, 2003 7:39 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, I find this annoying as well. I've solved it by disabling autofill of PW for this site. You will also need to delete all entries for this site under Tools |PW manager | Manage stored PWs.

TIP. Create one dummy post without title, but with UN and PW. Then allow PW manager to save only that.

PS. I wonder why Mozila saves the "Title" of the post (which is stupid), in addition to the Login and PW. :-\

PPS. It would be much better if mozillaZine prefilled the title of replies with the title of the replied-to post. :-P

#44 Re: Password Manager in MozillaZine

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday January 20th, 2003 10:08 AM

Reply to this message

"PS. I wonder why Mozila saves the 'Title' of the post (which is stupid), in addition to the Login and PW. :-"

It assumes the first text field is the username. The Password Manager just grabs all the text fields and password fields and saves them.

"PPS. It would be much better if mozillaZine prefilled the title of replies with the title of the replied-to post. :-P"

It does. The Password Manager overwrites it.

This could be fixed by altering MozillaZine, of course. It would be nice to have a persistent login system like MozillaNews has - it would allow for more customisation in other areas too (My MozillaZine, anyone?). But that would require substantial changes to the PHP/MySQL backend so it isn't going to happen any time soon, if at all.

Alex

#50 About a year ago I filed a bug on this

by PaulB <pbergsag@home.com>

Monday January 20th, 2003 1:05 PM

Reply to this message

And the response was that the developers refused to fix it.

It may be a comples fix, but could not the password manager offer an option for the user to be disable the saving of certian field so that when the form is filled in they are left blank?

Because of this bug there are sites were the password amager has to be disabled.

#51 checkout the replies to bug 128300

by PaulB <pbergsag@home.com>

Monday January 20th, 2003 1:23 PM

Reply to this message

This bug will likely never be resolved. If my skills with C++ were better I would tackle this one :( but they are too rudementary. Check out bug 128300 <<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128300>>

#23 Re: Feature not a Bug?

by ant_roy

Monday January 20th, 2003 3:07 AM

Reply to this message

I have a 800x600 desktop, and my digital camera outputs images of size 1600x1200. For me this is a great feature - I often think; "Gee, I wish that this image was smaller and grainier looking..." when viewing the jpeg in Moz :-)

#9 Antialiasing

by complinguist

Sunday January 19th, 2003 8:46 PM

Reply to this message

I have long been bothered by pixelized resizing that is done on webpages. Is there something in the works to antialias resized images?

#10 Sampling mode.

by neilcreek <neil@creek.name>

Sunday January 19th, 2003 10:02 PM

Reply to this message

The artifacts that result from this kind of scaling depends on the sampling mode to choose which pixels will be kept. I'd like to know what kind of sampling mode is used in Moz's implimentation.

Nearest neighbour - fastest but REALLY ugly Bilinear - slower but looks okay on low contrast images (text and edges still look bad) Bicubic - slowest but looks great! No image artifacts at all, just a little softening of the details. A sharpening filter can be run over the image to clean it up a bit, but that adds more time again.

I personally hope that bicubic sampling is used, for the best looking images. Computers are faster these days, and most imave viewing programs (like ACDSee) can do bicubic scaling pretty quickly. Idealy, the user could choose the scaling mode in the preferences, to suit their computer's speed, perhaps set to nearest neighbour by default.

Is there a problem with copyright or IP for using these different modes?

#16 Nearest Neigbour

by Paper

Monday January 20th, 2003 12:04 AM

Reply to this message

Actually, on Windows, Mozilla's resizing depends soley on the graphics card/Windows API. We don't do anything smarter because it would be way too slow or take up too much memory.

#32 Performance/other problems analysis

by leafdigital

Monday January 20th, 2003 6:38 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla always uses nearest-neighbour resizing, rather than a resampling technique.

And no, it wouldn't take up too much memory. Bilinear resampling takes no more memory than nearest-neighbour resizing: you need to store the original image, and space for your new smaller one. (If you were really short of memory you could reduce this by handling it a section at a time, which is true of both techniques but might be simpler for nearest-neighbour.)

It does take more CPU time. Whether this is an issue depends on how many images you are resizing, and how important the resize is.

For example if the browser is viewing a single jpg then obviously the user cares about that image so it should be resized in higher quality, even though (for a large image) this might case a half-second delay. But on a page with dozens of 'thumbnails' that some idiot produced using the full-size image and having the browser resize it, the delay could be more of a problem. (Although we should note that the page is not exactly going to be a fast loader in the first place.)

Another issue is that Web designers may expect image resize to work in a blocky manner; I've done this for a few sites. It can create a cool effect, which would be spoiled if resize became smooth :) That's not really a good reason for it, but..

IMO the best behaviour would be to leave as-is for rendering Web pages using width=, height=, but when the browser is viewing a single image file that is auto-resized, do it properly. It might also be worth doing it properly when the image dimensions are specified using the CSS properties (as that's a convenient 'changeover' point).

By the way I have ignored the hardware acceleration aspect. You *can* use a graphics card's acceleration to resize images smoothly, but this will not be done by default by the Windows API. I suspect it requires DirectX etc. and is probably more trouble than it's worth (as really, bilinear resize is *not* slow for a modern cpu and is probably adequate).

--sam

#33 Re: Performance/other problems analysis

by leafdigital

Monday January 20th, 2003 6:48 AM

Reply to this message

Also I forgot to mention - there are at least a couple of newer resampling algorithms that result in better quality results than you'd get from bicubic resampling at least for certain types of image. Bicubic isn't always the best available. (Others include S-spline and Lanczos resampling.) But when you get to this level it probably depends on the different images, whether you're going larger or smaller, and so forth. IMO for browser software, bilinear would be enough to make resized images (esp. screenshots w/ 1-pixel lines or something) not obviously suck.

Example enlargement (bicubic vs. s-spline) <http://www.astro-photogra…hy.com/1100%20comparo.htm>

And re evil patent issues - I'm not aware of any on basic bilinear resampling, it's certainly an algorithm that will be available in open-source tools like Gimp etc.

--sam

#48 Nearest Neigbour

by Paper

Monday January 20th, 2003 11:10 AM

Reply to this message

> And no, it wouldn't take up too much memory. Bilinear resampling takes > no more memory than nearest-neighbour resizing: you need to store the > original image, and space for your new smaller one.

It's still too much memory, according to the module owners & peers. Take, for example, a 2048x4096 image scaled down to 1024x2048. Original Image = 24M memory. Scaled Image = 6M. Total = 30M. Result = Important people complaining we use way too much memory. Or how about a 1000x500 image scaled to 99%? Now mozilla is using twice the memory it "should" be. A final example, 100x80 image scaled to 800x640. ~1.5M memory used, instead of ~23k. That's 65x the memory usage. Some people only look at numbers, and with those numbers (6M bloat, or 65x memory usage), those people shoot down any chances of caching the scaled image.

>It does take more CPU time.

Unfortunately, _a lot_ more CPU time. Since we don't cache scaled images, we would be re-sampling from the original every time the image needs repainting. This includes scrolling, resizing the window (in the case of % widths/heights), swishing another window over top of the image, etc.

> I suspect it requires DirectX etc. and is probably more trouble than it's worth OpenGL would be the route Mozilla would take if we had a volunteer. OpenGL has the advantage of being crossplatform. Bug 170553 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170553>

Don't get me wrong, I would enjoy bicubic interpolation in certain cases (especially the 2048x4096 scaled down to 1024x2048), but those cases are few and far inbetween. Sites that take large images and WIDTH=50 them deserve to have their images look ugly as a thumbnail. Those sites end up being down after a month anyway, due to bandwidth limits.

Of course, lack of mozilla.org support for pretty resizing support and/or caching scaled images should not stop a developer from writing such a thing. One could write it and hook it to a *cough*yetanotherpref*cough*, which would be disabled by default.

#56 Re: Nearest Neigbour

by leafdigital

Tuesday January 21st, 2003 3:40 AM

Reply to this message

My point re memory was that it doesn't need to take any more memory than the current resizing strategy. However much memory that is, is rather irrelevant. It needn't increase memory usage. Of course, it would if it then forced you to cache the image (which seems sensible), but you were trying to have that as a different point. You can't have your cake and eat it - either it takes too much cpu because we recalculate every time it paints, or it takes too much memory because we cache it. Not both. :)

(I think it's worth caching resampled images, even if it does potentially double memory costs - I don't think mozilla will automatically resize up so it could not have a higher impact than that. Additionally it would be easy to add thresholds, like using 'dumb' resize if memory is low or if the resized version is much larger than the original.)

I'm not saying this is an essential feature that needs to be in right now, just that it should really be there eventually. I heard somebody just ten minutes ago complaining about how awful IE's image resizing looked...

And although it's a lot more CPU than resizing, I don't think (linear) resampling need be all that slow. Certainly given it would only be used for full-screen image viewing where the image had been shrunk, I don't see it causing a huge difficulty. Again, you can have thresholds for this so that it is turned off on slow machines.

(I have written code like this in a Java application; by default, images are resampled smoothly as users drag them around, adjust their size, etc, but the system calculates approximate resample time per image area on that cpu. If paint for a particular image is predicted to take more than n milliseconds then it will be resized instead. So slower computers don't get dragged down, but faster machines get the benefit. BTW we don't cache resampled images there either but it is not too slow and that's in Java, although I should admit that we have a limit on image size of about 500x400 or so, so we don't see the slowdown from really huge images.)

Oh. And somebody pointed out that what I'm referring to as 'resizing' *is* a resampling strategy; yes it is, but traditionally in practical computing those words are used to indicate the difference between nearest-neighbour resampling and anything more clever. And it's a lot shorter. :)

--sam

#58 Re: Re: Nearest Neigbour

by egoots

Tuesday January 21st, 2003 1:49 PM

Reply to this message

> And although it's a lot more CPU than resizing, I don't think (linear) resampling need be all that slow. Certainly given it would only be used for full-screen image viewing where the > image had been shrunk, I don't see it causing a huge difficulty. Again, you can have thresholds for this so that it is turned off on slow machines.

bilinear interpolation (or higher order interpolations) will be measurably slower than nearest neighbour UNLESS it is done in hardware. Someone pointed out (<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98971>) that it can be up to 1 or 2 orders of magnitude slower. Also, many more images than one would expect tend to get "scaled" in the browser.

The current view in the relevant bug is that certain people dont want prefs, or "thresholds" or whatever...

It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

#52 Re: Performance/other problems analysis

by egoots

Monday January 20th, 2003 3:39 PM

Reply to this message

Not to get too picky... but nearest neighbour is a resampling technique, albeit the simplest and least effective one (of course, this is image dependent). In any case, It's been a while since I did significant image resampling using low level graphics card capabilities... It used to be that graphics cards hardware capabilities only included integer factor resizing (i.e. hardware zoom). I believe this has changed in these days of on board GPU's (and I may be showing my age here) but I think that it is mainly using the Texture engines (which has some limitations as a general purpose image manipulation engine). If the cards dont have the capabilities then OpenGl (e.g. using glPixelTransformParameterEXT() ) or DirectX (using whatever function call) will still be performing the interpolation in software.

Of interest as well, the cross-platform nature of Mozilla sometimes stands in the way of certain optimizations... For example, these type of operations could be optimizable using Intel's SSE or AMD 3DNow instruction sets. Of course, this would only be useful to a subset of the Mozilla platform target base and would require additional maintenance as CPU's changed.

The web browser has not been not typically used (I mean for the masses) as a high fidelity image viewing/manipulation tool and images tend to fit nicely in a 1 to 1 ratio from source to target. Having said that, if we are going to head down the path of substantial arbitrary scale factor image resampling, it might be nice to have some configurable options...I cant quite see this as a high priority yet, but perhaps it is another case of the old (Field of Dreams) adage, "if you build it, they will come".

#39 Bug 98971: Help Wanted

by tepples <tepples@spamcop.net>

Monday January 20th, 2003 8:51 AM

Reply to this message

No, but there's a problem with manpower for implementing it. Bug 98971 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98971> describes a request to add bilinear interpolation to image scaling. It even has some sample code to do such interpolation. However, it's marked 'helpwanted'. If you wish to contribute a patch to Mozilla's image library, please do so.

#11 Sampling mode.

by neilcreek <neil@creek.name>

Sunday January 19th, 2003 10:03 PM

Reply to this message

The artifacts that result from this kind of scaling depends on the sampling mode to choose which pixels will be kept. I'd like to know what kind of sampling mode is used in Moz's implimentation.

Nearest neighbour - fastest but REALLY ugly Bilinear - slower but looks okay on low contrast images (text and edges still look bad) Bicubic - slowest but looks great! No image artifacts at all, just a little softening of the details. A sharpening filter can be run over the image to clean it up a bit, but that adds more time again.

I personally hope that bicubic sampling is used, for the best looking images. Computers are faster these days, and most imave viewing programs (like ACDSee) can do bicubic scaling pretty quickly. Idealy, the user could choose the scaling mode in the preferences, to suit their computer's speed, perhaps set to nearest neighbour by default.

Is there a problem with copyright or IP for using these different modes?

#12 Useful for PDA's

by Malc

Sunday January 19th, 2003 10:38 PM

Reply to this message

Hmmm, this could have useful applications for my Palm Pilot. Sometimes I just want to save my current page - AvantGo is too much effort, and things like Pendrago are too buggy and too much effort. Perhaps with this feature I can resize my window to 160x160 and decide if it's worthwhile saving it. Just need to figure out how to view in on the device. I normally copy and paste in to Word and use Documents To Go.

#14 Re: Useful for PDA's

by robdogg

Sunday January 19th, 2003 11:09 PM

Reply to this message

Blazer does a pretty good job of downsizing images, though it is not perfect, but I am pretty happy with it on my Handspring Visor.

#42 Re: Useful for PDA's

by wtanksley

Monday January 20th, 2003 9:26 AM

Reply to this message

Then you need to use Plucker, <http://www.plkr.org.> It's free, GPLed, takes very little space, and generally kicks AvantGo's butt. It'll automatically and smoothly scale images to any resolution and depth you want, and if it's too big, will display a thumbnail in the page.

#17 What about Netscape 7.01?

by DeepFreeze3

Monday January 20th, 2003 2:27 AM

Reply to this message

Is this feature in this browser? If it is, how do you turn it on? And it it's not, can you easily add it in via the prefs.js or user.js files in your default profile folder?

#25 Re: What about Netscape 7.01?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday January 20th, 2003 4:21 AM

Reply to this message

"Is this feature in this browser?"

No. This was literally checked into the Mozilla trunk on Saturday morning. It will presumably be in the next Netscape release though.

Alex

#53 Release date of next Netscape broswer?

by DeepFreeze3

Monday January 20th, 2003 4:19 PM

Reply to this message

I wonder if the next release of Netscape's browser is imminent? If it is, I wonder what version number it'll have? NS 7.02?

#54 Re: Release date of next Netscape broswer?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday January 20th, 2003 5:14 PM

Reply to this message

"I wonder if the next release of Netscape's browser is imminent?"

I would guess it's a few months away.

"If it is, I wonder what version number it'll have? NS 7.02?"

Probably not. They're likely to move from the 1.0 branch back to the trunk which will probably lead to a larger increment of the version number.

Alex

#18 "Fit in page" context menu?

by _FG_

Monday January 20th, 2003 2:41 AM

Reply to this message

I'd like this "feature" but ONLY when I want it! What about adding a "Fit in page" context menu item when used over an image?

#27 Re: "Fit in page" context menu?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday January 20th, 2003 4:22 AM

Reply to this message

"What about adding a "Fit in page" context menu item when used over an image?"

I think there will be a View menu item.

Alex

#19 The Worst of IE, Coming to Mozilla

by superyooser

Monday January 20th, 2003 2:45 AM

Reply to this message

For owners of web sites, automatic image resizing is *not* optional. Their content is being deliberately altered, possibly distorted, and mispresented without their permission and without the user being aware of it on a per incident basis. (I know, the option must be clicked on, but "automatic" means that the user doesn't necessarily know when resizing is occurring.) As someone else alluded to, this could possibly result in copyright violations. The browser, playing the middle man between content developer and viewer, is entrusted by both sides with rendering content faithfully according to accepted standards and *expected behavior*. The developer is left completely out of the loop, and the viewer doesn't know what images have been automatically resized without mousing over every single suspiciously large image.

This is a *mis*feature and should not be in the regular builds.

Why is Mozilla embracing the worst aspects of IE? First, it was the annoying, non-standard marquee tag, now this. What next? IE's lame page transitions? VBScript? FrontPage extensions in Composer? This is all cruft.

If automatic_image_distorting is really going to stay in Mozilla, then there should at least be a Meta tag for web developers to prevent their images from being shrunk. I know, MS hasn't done it for IE, but Mozilla could be bold and take the high low ground. ;-)

#22 Re: The Worst of IE, Coming to Mozilla

by simifilm

Monday January 20th, 2003 2:54 AM

Reply to this message

I understand if people don't like this feature (I haven't tried I yet, but I can imagine that I might like it in certain situations), but I completely fail to see any kind of copyright violation here. The creator of the website has not control over the final appearance of his site anyway and as a user I am allowed to sequeeze and stretch a picture or webpage as I please. If I have a monochrome screen the picture looks different than on 22" cinema display. This is completely normal and has nothing to do with copyright whatosever.

#31 Respectfully Disagree

by illsleydc <illsleydc@bigfoot.com>

Monday January 20th, 2003 5:11 AM

Reply to this message

1. There is NO copyright violation 2. The devloper has NO rights on my machine. I respectfully say that it is my decision how I view a website. If I want to turn javascript off, that's my decision. If I want to view a page in a windowwith chrome the website says shouldn't have chrome that's my decision. 3. I find this useful when viewing digital photos or mine. It allows me to see the whole image, then have it expanded if I want it (but asthetically, viewing the whole image is ALWAYS nicer) 4. It defaults to OFF and has a UI pref!!!

#24 Re: The Worst of IE, Coming to Mozilla

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Monday January 20th, 2003 3:21 AM

Reply to this message

Ok. It can be annoying when IE do shrink the image. But we are talking about big images now that doesn't fit the window. So 99.99% of all sites will not be affected of this change... if an ordinary website contains very large images is often because: * the webmaster don't know how to make the images smaller and forces its viewers to download a large image. * the image itself is in a pop-up window that is to small compare to the image. Once again the webmasters fault. * (and now the annoying one in ie) you choose to view a single large image in your browser from explorer

I think this is a good feature if (like in ie) you can turn it off :) because some people will think this feature is nice.

#26 Re: The Worst of IE, Coming to Mozilla

by sconest

Monday January 20th, 2003 4:22 AM

Reply to this message

Well, in Mozilla, it is turned off by default.

#28 Re: The Worst of IE, Coming to Mozilla

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday January 20th, 2003 4:31 AM

Reply to this message

"For owners of web sites, automatic image resizing is *not* optional."

It's as optional as it is for everyone else.

"Their content is being deliberately altered, possibly distorted, and mispresented without their permission and without the user being aware of it on a per incident basis. (I know, the option must be clicked on, but "automatic" means that the user doesn't necessarily know when resizing is occurring.)"

I hear that sometimes Mozilla replaces images with alt text as well. Shocking!

"As someone else alluded to, this could possibly result in copyright violations. The browser, playing the middle man between content developer and viewer, is entrusted by both sides with rendering content faithfully according to accepted standards and *expected behavior*."

I would say resizing a publicly-available image so it fits in the browser window and not distributing the altered image constitutes fair use.

"The developer is left completely out of the loop, and the viewer doesn't know what images have been automatically resized without mousing over every single suspiciously large image."

Uh, the images won't be suspiciously large, they'll be just the right size to fit in the browser window. This feature only affects standalone images that are loaded into the browser (i.e. not images on Web pages) and only shrinks images that would be too large to fit otherwise.

"If automatic_image_distorting is really going to stay in Mozilla, then there should at least be a Meta tag for web developers to prevent their images from being shrunk."

Yes, it should be implemented right after they've done the meta tag that allows developers to disable pop-up blocking.

Alex

#30 The First Rule Of Web Design

by jgraham

Monday January 20th, 2003 5:05 AM

Reply to this message

Design for the web is not equivalent to design for print.

If the page author doesn't want their content altered in any way, they should be using a format like PDF. If they are going to use a format that is designed specifically with user-customisation in mind they can't complain if people exploit that customisation. After all, I can already turn images off or use img {-moz-binding:marquee;} in userContent.css (should I so desire, and if it would work), or use text zoom (very useful) or change all my text to be pink and blue or... This is a central concept in web design: the browser is indeed expected to render according to the standards, but the stanards explicitly specify that the *user* has a place in the cascade and may override the document authors preferences. It's not until people understand this that we have any hope of an accessiable web where sites *don't* break if text is zoomed, or they are displayed on a PDA screen (imagine viewing a 1024*768 or larger photo on a PDA. Do you see the problem?), or whatever else the *user* decides is the best way for them to understand the information being presented.

#46 Re: The First Rule Of Web Design

by dan <dan@softdisk.com>

Monday January 20th, 2003 10:29 AM

Reply to this message

For that matter, PDF gets resized to suit the viewer window, and can be zoomed and shrunk under user control. So control-freak developers who don't want their stuff resized don't "get no satisfaction" there either.

#34 HTML isn't a layout language

by Malc

Monday January 20th, 2003 6:57 AM

Reply to this message

Who cares about the web site owners? If they think they have precise control over layout, then they obviously don't know the basic principles and fundamentals of HTML and should go back to school. HTML from inception has been rendered differently from one browser to another. What happens if I use a text only browser like Lynx (a great way of shutting out all that crap like Java, JavaScript, images, Flash and horrible colour schemes)? Does that constitute a deliberate altering of a web site? What about all the layout and rending bugs in IE that make it differ from the standards, do you view that in the same light?

#40 SimpleText doesn't delete right

by tepples <tepples@spamcop.net>

Monday January 20th, 2003 8:56 AM

Reply to this message

"without the user being aware of it on a per incident basis"

The blurb did mention a special cursor that appears when Mozilla has resized an image to fit in the browser window. I see no reason why this wouldn't be enough to make the user aware of it.

#57 Re: The Worst of IE, Coming to Mozilla

by tpederzani

Tuesday January 21st, 2003 10:55 AM

Reply to this message

Ok, I went to Microsoft's website, and on this page (<http://www.microsoft.com/…it/ie6/part3/c09ie6rk.asp>) there are two pieces of information:

The first one involves disabling the image toolbar (that gives you the print, email, etc. functions). To do so, just put a meta with http-equiv="imagetoolbar" and content="no" into your pages.

The second piece says this about image resizing: Automatic Image Resizing works only when users navigate directly to pictures. Internet Explorer cannot resize pictures that are embedded within HTML pages.

I fail to see how your comment applies to IE as it exists, though it might be valid about how the feature has been implemented in Mozilla.

#20 I hope it's better than IE

by wvw

Monday January 20th, 2003 2:50 AM

Reply to this message

I really hate the function in IE. It might work when only viewing an image, but IE has that irritating toolbar on each image. I bet they remove it in the next version.

#29 Re: I hope it's better than IE

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday January 20th, 2003 4:37 AM

Reply to this message

"I really hate the function in IE. It might work when only viewing an image, but IE has that irritating toolbar on each image."

Have you tried the Mozilla implementation of this feature? It really doesn't suck.

Alex

#21 Re: The Worst of IE, Coming to Mozilla

by simifilm

Monday January 20th, 2003 2:54 AM

Reply to this message

I understand if people don't like this feature (I haven't tried I yet, but I can imagine that I might like it in certain situations), but I completely fail to see any kind of copyright violation here. The creator of the website has not control over the final appearance of his site anyway and as a user I am allowed to sequeeze and stretch a picture or webpage as I please. If I have a monochrome screen the picture looks different than on 22" cinema display. This is completely normal and has nothing to do with copyright whatosever.

#41 Suggestions...

by SomeGuy

Monday January 20th, 2003 9:24 AM

Reply to this message

As someone with a web site that has many large computer desktop screen shots I am not sure I like this feature as it is right now. At least it is not on by default. Viewers of my site may think the resized image is the actual image and that I have resized it poorly, and they already click on a thumbnail image to get to the actual image. As these are screen shots I prefer that my viewers see them pixel-for-pixel as they were captured from the origional system. On the other hand this would let them see the entire image at a larger size without having to scroll.

To make this more useful I would suggest the following: 1: Anti-alias the resized image 2: It needs some additional indication of what to do. At least a message like "Click the image to resize" in the status bar seems logcal to me. 3: Zoom in on the section clicked on. For example if I click on the lower right it should zoom in scrolled down to the lower right. 4: Once zoomed how about being able to grab the image and drag it around instead of scrolling?

-- Posted using Mozilla build 2003011908 under Windows NT 3.51 SP 5. No, I am not joking although I must be crazy for trying this.

#45 Re: Suggestions...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday January 20th, 2003 10:15 AM

Reply to this message

"Posted using Mozilla build 2003011908 under Windows NT 3.51 SP 5. No, I am not joking although I must be crazy for trying this."

You're not the first. :-)

<http://www.toastytech.com/guis/misc5.html>

Alex

#47 This is nice

by MozSaidAloha

Monday January 20th, 2003 11:03 AM

Reply to this message

Posting from the 1/20 nightly trunk build...

I never liked how this feature was done in IE. Mozilla and Phoenix have it right. Since testing it with both, I believe it shouls be turned on by default.

#55 Re: This is nice

by arma

Tuesday January 21st, 2003 12:53 AM

Reply to this message

Just to be sure: in which phoenix build this feature should work?

#59 Re: Re: This is nice

by MozSaidAloha

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 11:33 AM

Reply to this message

It's in the trunk nightly build. Go here to download:

<ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub…enix/nightly/latest-trunk>

There's builds for Win32 and x86 GNU/Linux.

#61 Re: Re: Re: This is nice

by MozSaidAloha

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 4:48 PM

Reply to this message

SeaMonkey trunk builds can found here:

<ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub…illa/nightly/latest-trunk>

#60 Re: This is nice

by MozSaidAloha

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 4:46 PM

Reply to this message

Looks like I was wrong. This should be turned off by default.

#49 if we are talking about nice ie features...

by jobe451

Monday January 20th, 2003 11:51 AM

Reply to this message

... What's about bug 60861 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60861> (Autocompletion for form <input> fields like IE5)