[GRASS-dev] Submitting rules for images and r.viewshed example

GRASS GRASS developer
1

Hi all,

looking at r69472 I wonder if we want to change submitting rules. The
current guideline is saying 600px width. Consequently both the image and
the max are image takes in the page is 600px. The height is assumed to be
smaller than that (I assume). The image in r69472 is wider in the page
itself and the actual image is lager as well.

I actually like the clickable images as a way of showing full detail but
then the question is what should be size in the page. And another question
is what about the download size of the images (we have be conserving size
till now). And related to that, do we need thumb nails (might be too
complicated but also might be done automatically)?

Best,
Vaclav

https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/69472
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/Submitting/Docs#Images

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:00 PM, <svn_grass@osgeo.org> wrote:

Modified:
   grass/trunk/raster/r.viewshed/r.viewshed.html
   grass/trunk/raster/r.viewshed/r.viewshed.png
Log:
r.viewshed manual: improved example screenshot; clickable
...
</pre></div>

<div align="center" style="margin: 10px">
-<img src="r.viewshed.png" border=0><br>
-<i>Viewshed</i>
+<a href="r.viewshed.png">
+<img src="r.viewshed.png" width="900" alt="r.viewshed example"
border=0><br>
+</a>

2

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Vaclav Petras <wenzeslaus@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

looking at r69472 I wonder if we want to change submitting rules. The
current guideline is saying 600px width. Consequently both the image and the
max are image takes in the page is 600px. The height is assumed to be
smaller than that (I assume). The image in r69472 is wider in the page
itself and the actual image is lager as well.

Yes, this follows the ideas implemented in the wxGUI modeler manual page:
https://grass.osgeo.org/grass72/manuals/wxGUI.gmodeler.html

The original attempt to respect the 600px with was a failure due to
unreadability of the menus.
Hence Ludka developed the way to make the images clickable and
autoscale to 600px in the browser rendering when being in full page
mode.

I actually like the clickable images as a way of showing full detail

The other advantage is that having higher resolution/extent images
available does not prevent from using them in presentations.
Many older screenshots are unusable for that reason.

Please note that the original file size has been reduced with these tools
- pnqnq (reducing colors by quantization)
- optipng (optimize compression)

but
then the question is what should be size in the page.

600px width. The height often depends on the topic or input data.

And another question
is what about the download size of the images (we have be conserving size
till now).

... as small as possible :slight_smile:

And related to that, do we need thumb nails (might be too
complicated but also might be done automatically)?

I don't think that thumbnails are of any use. They are just unreadable
and since we don't know on which device the manual will be rendered I
like Ludka's autoscale approach much better.

So: I am all for optimizing our submission rules to reflect the
improved approach.

cheers,
Markus

Best,
Vaclav

https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/69472
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/Submitting/Docs#Images