Difference between revisions of "Dungeons and Dragons Wiki talk:Image Policies"

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(File Support Discussion)
(File Type Support)
 
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
So, for a while now, it has been apparent on my higher-resolution monitor that the wiki's images for its navigation show up a bit pixelated. They're well compressed, small and optimized .pngs, which is great for saving on loading times and data usage and all that, but they show up kinda fuzzy. All the graphics I did started as vector-based graphics (with some having touch-ups in photoshop here and there). I could go back and set everything back up again for optimized output as vector .svg files. They're be a little larger as far as data-use is concerned (I did a test on "articleundiscussed.png" and it came out to 18 kb compared to the original 4 kb of the .png). The thing is, we have support for .svg files and I'm not sure if its worth the data use, tinkering with the setup of the site and whatever else I'd have to do to make this fly. I'd like have the site be as optimal as possible for mobile devices and classic PCs. If there was any input from people on this, I'd love to hear. Also, not sure if there's any inherent risk in using and supporting .svg files as well. --[[User:Ganteka Future|Ganteka Future]] ([[User talk:Ganteka Future|talk]]) 10:11, 24 August 2019 (MDT)
 
So, for a while now, it has been apparent on my higher-resolution monitor that the wiki's images for its navigation show up a bit pixelated. They're well compressed, small and optimized .pngs, which is great for saving on loading times and data usage and all that, but they show up kinda fuzzy. All the graphics I did started as vector-based graphics (with some having touch-ups in photoshop here and there). I could go back and set everything back up again for optimized output as vector .svg files. They're be a little larger as far as data-use is concerned (I did a test on "articleundiscussed.png" and it came out to 18 kb compared to the original 4 kb of the .png). The thing is, we have support for .svg files and I'm not sure if its worth the data use, tinkering with the setup of the site and whatever else I'd have to do to make this fly. I'd like have the site be as optimal as possible for mobile devices and classic PCs. If there was any input from people on this, I'd love to hear. Also, not sure if there's any inherent risk in using and supporting .svg files as well. --[[User:Ganteka Future|Ganteka Future]] ([[User talk:Ganteka Future|talk]]) 10:11, 24 August 2019 (MDT)
 +
 +
:I would be good with this. There should be no risk in supporting SVGs (though we can start with just a single one to test it), and while the size increase sucks this is the sort of problem that browser caching is suppose to solve. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 10:28, 24 August 2019 (MDT)

Latest revision as of 16:28, 24 August 2019

I found a useful template in the DnDWiki section which I moved to Template:Image. --Havvy 14:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File Type Support[edit]

So, for a while now, it has been apparent on my higher-resolution monitor that the wiki's images for its navigation show up a bit pixelated. They're well compressed, small and optimized .pngs, which is great for saving on loading times and data usage and all that, but they show up kinda fuzzy. All the graphics I did started as vector-based graphics (with some having touch-ups in photoshop here and there). I could go back and set everything back up again for optimized output as vector .svg files. They're be a little larger as far as data-use is concerned (I did a test on "articleundiscussed.png" and it came out to 18 kb compared to the original 4 kb of the .png). The thing is, we have support for .svg files and I'm not sure if its worth the data use, tinkering with the setup of the site and whatever else I'd have to do to make this fly. I'd like have the site be as optimal as possible for mobile devices and classic PCs. If there was any input from people on this, I'd love to hear. Also, not sure if there's any inherent risk in using and supporting .svg files as well. --Ganteka Future (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2019 (MDT)

I would be good with this. There should be no risk in supporting SVGs (though we can start with just a single one to test it), and while the size increase sucks this is the sort of problem that browser caching is suppose to solve. Surgo (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2019 (MDT)