At the bottom of the editing page is a new tab called Attachments. For the time being images and text documents can be inserted into your posts simply by opening the tab and pressing the [Add files] button. Since this is a first for us, there might be some configuration glitches and some patience may be required while we figured this all out. Most of the usual file types are allowed but some have been denied or simply are not available. I was generous with the file size spec, but if we have trouble going forward, just let me know. I'll see if it can be fixed. Enjoy the new feature.
Whoops, maximum file size is 512 kb, mine is 750 so I'll have to reduce it first.
Don't know what I was doing wrong, but I kept reducing it, and it kept showing too many kb.
Did it one more time and then it was way down there for some reason.
Oh well. Let's see what it looks like on here.
Yours Truly, hi hi
Just a Pix of Lil Ole Me!
20171025_095037-1-1.jpg (36.19 KiB) Viewed 1707 times
Don't know what I was doing wrong, but I kept reducing it, and it kept showing too many kb.
Browser cache problems ???
Thanks for testing the new function. I wasn't sure what a good file size would be in our case. The default is 256KB and I'm certain that is fine for anything we would want to display here. If it becomes an issue I'll review the settings, but in the meantime do try to keep the KB's within the recommended size.
I kept reducing the original image size by 10% and it still kept showing like 20 mb.
Cut the resolution all the way down to 75 and it still showed 15 mb.
I cut it down to 3x5 and it showed up as 37 kb. So I went ahead and posted it.
My mom gave me that "Genuine Antique Person" hat for my 40th birthday.
I wore it again for my 50th, 60th, and 70th birthdays.
Looking at that picture confuses me.
I didn't get that red coat until I moved south in 2003, after I sold my house.
So the background has to be my office up here in the garage.
So I would say that picture was taken on my 60th birthday, not likely my 70th because you couldn't fit in my office anymore, hi hi.
I know the hat is now over 30 years old.
I don't remember when I got the Beavis and Butthead tie, but have worn it to fun events many times.
As for the boutonniere, it was long dead before I stuck it to my coat, hi hi.
I don't know what to tell you about the image file size. My photo editor will allow me to export .jpg at different compression ratios. Perhaps that would be a better way to reduce the size instead of just shrinking the original. In any case, if it becomes a problem I'll be glad to look into it.
I used to have a program that showed me the file size and let my change it by simply changing the desired file size, then it would export the image at that file size. Trouble is, I don't remember what program I had that did that, since I don't work with images that often anymore.
Almost all of the images in my files start out as tiff files of 36x48 inches, some even larger than that, especially old black n white images. Makes them easier to work on, extract a single face from the crowd, and still have a printable image.
When printed as a 9x12, 5x7, or 3x5, they are always as sharp as a razors edge.
Provided of course the image itself was of very high quality to start with.
Heck, look at all we can do with a FAVICON now. And still keep the size down to 16x16 pixels and it looks like 300x300 pixels.
Sure beats the old way of making them one pixel at a time like the old days, hi hi.
I was just looking at the favicons for our site since I was in there anyway upgrading software. I'm pretty sure they are of the 16x16 variety that I made using an online webpage. The only reason I did the favicons in the first place is for when I made bookmarks for this domain. Each subdomain has it's own icon now but did not originally. No icons made it hard to sort them out visually in my bookmarks list. Now with all the possible forms of displays and the favicons to go along with them, we are yet again obsolete in certain areas. It seems too trivial to bother with, but you never know when I might run out of things to do.
Well dang, I seem to have lost my message again. Not the sites fault this time. My browser closed on me.
The only important thing I said was my favicon is 32x32, but somehow has more pixels compressed into it.
Else my picture wouldn't be as clear as it is at that size, blow it up and it is fuzzy, not pixelated.
Oh, I also said, it appears in my browser drop down list of links, and also on the open Tab, but no longer in the URL bar which now only shows a Lock.
From what I can tell the 32x32 favicon must be in .png image format. the 16x16 is .ico. All browsers know what to do with the .ico but none of them know about .png favicons. Thus you need to put a metatag in your web page header that shows the source (location) of the .png favicon. It's the same kind of tag you need to insert for CSS pages. The browser needs instructions for where to find those non-standard documents.
I've seen websites that will take your giant size image file and turn it into a favicon. The methodology behind that is a mystery to me. When your image format is 32 pixels wide by 32 pixels high you don't have any more than that to work with. The .ico format is pretty much bit mapped but .png works a little differently. Regardless of how the colors are embedded into the file, the final product will only be 32x32 or 16x16.
I've notice too that since we switched to SSL the lock has replaced the favicon in the browser address bar. It should not affect bookmarks however. In the case of this site it's all superfluous. I don't have a brand I'm promoting so that the visuals for Brainformation are meaningless. Favicons are cute, but don't do much for our purposes.
I don't think mine a png file, pretty sure it is just favicon.ico that fetches it.
I've used the same ones now for so many years, I don't remember what I started with to make them, or how I did it. From another website that did them for me is certain, but which one I don't remember.
I just checked, perhaps I am using both png and ico.
<link rel="Shortcut Icon"
type="image/x-icon"
href="../favicon.ico" />
<link rel="icon"
type="image/png"
href="../favicon.png" />
So long ago since I made these entries. I'm not even sure why I have two, or which one appears where.
The thing is, they both look the same to me. In the List, and in the URL bar.
The code above is from my authors website, but I imagine it is the same on my other websites.
It's possible that back when you generated those tags browsers needed that information for the .ico file. These days it's built into the browser engine and a metatag is not necessary. However, .png images are not dedicated as are .ico. Thus the browser needs those special instructions to know where your image is located and what you intend to do with it. I honestly don't know what happens when you declare both. I think the larger of the two was meant to be used in mobile environments. A favicon 32x32 probably would not fit into the space allotted to the address bar, but it might work on a tablet or smartphone with super high resolution.
That makes sense. I was thinking about that last night as well, and I think the png is used in the drop down list on the browser links, and the ico is used in the URL bar or now on the Tab.
I've been to a few websites that have both the lock and their favicon before their name, but I can't tell how they do that by looking at the source, so perhaps they are doing it by appending it to their display name somehow? Which I think is most likely since the image that appears on the tab is different than the one that appears before their URL.
I believe the lock icon is generated by the particular browser you are using. It's supposed to tell you the format is https. The URL does not have provisions for images as far as I know. You might be able to embed an image in the site title tag, but that too is a metatag which is usually text only. As far as I know the favicon is nothing the website has control over other than providing it for the browser to use. The fact that they show up at all is due to the way the browser functions and not the way the site is coded. It's one of those cute things that are nice to have, but for non-business sites such as this one it's pointless to have a favicon. The only reason we have them is ... because I can. LOL
My personal sites have an image of lil ole me!
My author sites have my DR logo. It also appears on the face and spine of my books as well.
I've made quite a few sales on book sale sites, simply because folks were familiar with seeing my logo.
A few folks may be looking at a row of books, trying to make up their mind which one to buy.
Subconsciously, seeing the logo makes that author seem familiar to them, and can sway their decision.
For a little over 5 years, I had a paid for ad running, the main goal of which was to keep that logo in readers faces.
It worked out pretty well, because my sales pretty much averaged out to about the same every month for all the years that ad ran.
