- From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:39:13 +0200
what at keepthebyte.ch wrote: > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:46:08 +1300, "Matthew Thomas" <mpt at myrealbox.com> > said: > >>Should UAs be able to restrict uploads based on the bit depth of >>images? (For some purposes only 1-bit images are desired.) How about >>based on whether images are animated or not? (Some forums may want >>avatars to be non-animated only.) How about based on the number of I agree that most of the uploadable files cannot be filtered by user agent. In addition think that file upload dialog *hiding* images which don't fit certain pixel sizes would be a bad UI because users aren't expecting such behavior from file selection dialog. I would, however, support a suggestion to ask UA to scale the uploaded image to certain smaller size so that the file would be faster to send (think about a photo taken with a 8MP digital camera, for example). I can see two positive outcomes from this support: 1) Upload time is less than when using server side scaling 2) User gets in the charge with the scaling algorithm -- e.g. UA could allow the user to tweak scaling algorithm and/or JPEG compression parameters so that resulting image would look sharper/would be quicker to send. Perhaps generate three different versions of scaled image and let the user choose the one that looks the best. > Another idea: how about a "compress" flag - the UA compresses (zip) the > file/s before sending - that could reduce upload time dramatically and > improve user experience. The document management system vendors would > love this feature. How about server just sends Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate (or some other encoding) HTTP header to the UA and UA sends everything compressed if possible? -- Mikko
Received on Monday, 3 January 2005 03:39:13 UTC