Välkommen till ett uppdaterat Klocksnack.se
Efter ett digert arbete är nu den största uppdateringen av Klocksnack.se någonsin klar att se dagens ljus.
Forumet kommer nu bli ännu snabbare, mer lättanvänt och framför allt fyllt med nya funktioner.
Vi har skapat en tråd på diskussionsdelen för feedback och tekniska frågeställningar.
Tack för att ni är med och skapar Skandinaviens bästa klockforum!
/Hook & Leben
My experience now is that pictures are loaded in one go, not partially but it takes forever in some threads. There's just a blank space where the picture should be until it appears completely.
The images would still be loaded via the Lazy Image Loading method, but a blank SVG is used to prevent screen shift and the layout messing up until they are loaded once they are in the view port:
Upplever samma sak och har gjort det ända sedan nya plattformen togs i drift men frågan är om det inte den senaste tiden varit värre än någonsin. Positivt på ett sätt då det leder till att jag spenderar betydligt mindre tid på forumet och mer tid på annat
Their site is using different image options though. They are downscaling any image uploaded to a maximum width of 800pixels or 1600x1600 for full size images, where as this isn't done on here.@MattWServices. Picture loading must be a major forum bug ? Or lack of capacity? Have a look at Uhrforum. No lagging what so ever with twice as many members/threds/messages as KS. On top of that adds in a mass....
Their site is using different image options though. They are downscaling any image uploaded to a maximum width of 800pixels or 1600x1600 for full size images, where as this isn't done on here.
That will immediately result in much smaller images being served to anyone viewing the threads on there, compared to the much larger images on here. Some image heavy threads on here are loading over 300MB of images for a single page.
They are also using Lazy Loading for images, because it's the default option provided by the XenForo 2 software.
I would say thats the way you should go. It works flawless in UF. You will not get a bugreport fr any browser and it has nothing at all to do with type of connection or device nor browser. Have tried on Gbit, 4g, Mac, PC, IPhone and Andriod, Safari, Google and FF. Same same.Their site is using different image options though. They are downscaling any image uploaded to a maximum width of 800pixels or 1600x1600 for full size images, where as this isn't done on here.
That will immediately result in much smaller images being served to anyone viewing the threads on there, compared to the much larger images on here. Some image heavy threads on here are loading over 300MB of images for a single page.
They are also using Lazy Loading for images, because it's the default option provided by the XenForo 2 software.
I've shown the 3 different ways in which images can be attached to posts.
The first one is a 300pixel wide thumbnail, which will then load the full image in the lightbox overlay
The second one is the full image, which is then scaled back down to the width of the message box (but the full image is still loaded), which you can see by looking at the page source:
and the third one is where images are attached, but not inserted in-line, so are appended as small images to the end of the message.
It's the posts where the full size images are inserted that are causing the huge page loading size.
It's down to @hook and @Leben how large the images should be, as it's their site, but there are things which can be done such as running additional optimization against the attachments to reduce the file size, but keeping "most" of the quality of the images (but required an addon to the software, and would need to be ran over 1.5million previously attached images).
Any idea what the cause could be since people only started experiencing issues after the switch to the new version of Xenforo? Surely something must have changed regarding how or when images are loaded since no one seemed to be having any issues before the update? Assuming size limits etc. were the same both before and after the switch of course.
I'd argue that the thumbnails are basically useless on modern day monitors and smartphones as you in many cases can barely tell what it's supposed to depict. However, with that said perhaps the size limit for full images could be lowered from the current whopping 25MP to a more reasonable limit.
The images are handled and displayed in the same way, the only change is the implementation of Lazy Loading in XF2.
25MP is what the server will accept, and then scales it back down to the attachment dimensions I've shown above. This still can result in very large images in terms of site in MB rather than just pixel dimensions.
I would agree at 300pixels, but increasing to 800pixels would be better than having a load multiple large images only to have the browser scale them back down again to fit in the view.
Most of them in my experience.
Sorry to say but pick any random thred with many posts/pages.
