200 X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors 'self'; X-UA-Compatible: IE=Edge X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff X-Telligent-Evolution: 12.x Pragma: no-cache Connection: close Accept-Ranges: bytes Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, max-age=0 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 06:25:32 GMT ETag: "0x8DD02F56CCD7D1F" Set-Cookie: .te.csrf=2baGRSp1AmF9T-IT3S8usLMPbOOYRzwNlYIPhha5jcw; path=/; secure; SameSite=Lax Set-Cookie: .te.auth=N7dLxLjlKRMt5srnrHgr4TZmV2PHWrIQLQjZVka%2fRdWD99MpGlrKXSVBWMmfSs829Kj%2bCMFzN8EdMTZAmavETyNujBmcvAty%2fbwbYtDck7Hbu0s1oVZeWRJ4PmGk0iL4UEVELjDgBHW60SVOqFUYTOvnDIcpOAvrvrI6QO7ZUZz%2bFR15dOGvRvbGBXmlxnNZJok9Mew%2fJHjql21cXKgcKcHRJCMppoEGyAmL3pP0fO9bmwvm8wZ4FByKfRz%2b6SRXfX80olDU%2f2l0Qe4ZO5%2bAiw%3d%3d; path=/; secure; HttpOnly; SameSite=Lax Set-Cookie: e14Guest=1; expires=Fri, 31-Dec-9999 23:59:59 GMT; path=/; secure; HttpOnly Set-Cookie: e14Country=NL; expires=Fri, 31-Dec-9999 23:59:59 GMT; path=/; secure; HttpOnly Set-Cookie: e14Language=en; expires=Fri, 31-Dec-9999 23:59:59 GMT; path=/; secure; HttpOnly Set-Cookie: e14TimeZone=Etc/UTC; expires=Fri, 31-Dec-9999 23:59:59 GMT; path=/; secure; HttpOnly Server-Timing: cdn-cache; desc=MISS Server-Timing: edge; dur=6 Server-Timing: origin; dur=22 Server-Timing: ak_p; desc="1732947932088_34849654_149044637_2843_9993_3_6_-";dur=1 Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=86400 ; includeSubDomains ; preload #set ($UserId = $core_v2_user.Accessing.Id) #set ($Roles = $core_v2_utility.MakeList('Moderators', 'Almost Admins', 'Administrators')) #set ($IsAdminLike = $e14_utils.IsUserInRoleOrAdmin($UserId, $Roles)) #if($IsAdminLike == 'False') #end
Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • State Verified Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 615 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Post Images for Blogs (not embedded images)

Andrew J

When creating a blog, it is possible from the Options tab to upload a Post Image.  This appears as a banner at the top of the blog post automatically; a portion is also extracted and sized for a thumbnail in the list of blogs.

Checking the Verint documentation, it recommends that the Post Image size is 2020 x 800 pixels but I think this site might be working with slightly different dimension? Either that or the Verint software is resizing somewhat differently.

In my test blog here: /members-area/b/blog/posts/test-of-table-of-contents-problem---spurious-entries-created

I added a Post Image of 2020 x 800 pixels.  That image has a number of coloured borders to help identify the portion actually displayed and what I've found is:

The banner displayed when viewing the blog is 2880 x 800 resized from the uploaded image, in fact I think it has been doubled with an expectation of a file 1440x400 pixels??  That means the 2020x800 loses Y-edge portions top and bottom and only 560 pixels measured equally from the centre Y dimension is shown in order to maintain the aspect ratio.  this is the BLUE border in the Post Image.

The icon is 76x76 pixels resized from a 800x800 pixel portion taken equally from the centre X dimension.  This is the GREEN border in the Post Image.

Is this standard Verint behaviour or part of the customisation?  Do the developers have any recommendation for the Post Image dimensions so that (a) the right size to ensure a correct resizing occurs; (b) positioning of elements in the image such that the extracted icon still makes sense?

Here's the actual image I used:

image

Hope this makes sense.

Parents
  • 0

       any chance you could check with devs?  Would it be best to upload a 2880x800 pixel image in the first place?

  • 0 in reply to Andrew J

    Hi  ,

    Hah, that's broken. I wonder what is going on here.

    I tested it on our non-customised environment:

    image

    And then as you say, what on earth is going on with it on our site?

    image

    Looks like for some reason, it's cropped in at least one place.

    I'll raise this with the developers as that's not what I would expect to happen. Thank you.

  • 0 in reply to cstanton

    Ok thanks Chris.  Could you confirm what is expected behaviour for the banner and icon - i.e. assuming no bug, what is the correct size to use and where in the image the icon is generated from?  Is there a workaround for now (2880x800 perhaps)?  

  • 0 in reply to Andrew J

    Hi   ,

    Andrew J said:
    Could you confirm what is expected behaviour for the banner and icon
    Andrew J said:
    where in the image the icon is generated from?

    image

    image

    It should show the full image, and use a centred square of the image for the thumbnail.

    Andrew J said:
    what is the correct size to use

    The size you found as the recommended size, and used.

    Andrew J said:
    Is there a workaround for now (2880x800 perhaps)?  

    You could try cropping the image height, but I am told by the developers that they may have put in a hotfix for this at present so it may be working as expected? I'm unsure, they have raised it with Verint for further assistance.

  • 0 in reply to cstanton

    Hi  .  I'm not sure if the hot fix is in or not but I tried updating by reloading the test image and the same thing happened.  I then created a new one, of size 2880x800 and uploaded that - in this case, it keeps the whole thing and nothing is lost.  It's still there, so you can see for yourself.

    The workaround at the moment then is to use an image of 2880x800 pixels where the middle 800x800 pixels are used to generate the icon.  I'd be happy if the site stuck with that as a 2020x800 seems an odd size and you may have to adjust the existing template to accommodate that given its currently expecting 1440x800 and resizing to 2880x800.  That could mean any existing posts that use Post Images would find they look a bit weird.

  • 0 in reply to Andrew J

    Thanks  , I appreciate that you're working with me on this. We'll get there in the end.

  • 0 in reply to cstanton

    No problem.  

    One other thought I had: if you do decide to leave it at 2020x800 it would be REALLY useful if no resizing occurred - i.e. that is the size the template accepted.  The reason being that the X and Y dimensions are not multiples of each other so any resizing is going to leave one of the dimensions  an odd size (or truncated).  Also, without a decent resizing algorithm, it can leave the image a bit blurry because vector images aren't accepted.  I guess a smaller image size would need to be resized, e.g. 1010x400 can be doubled but then it's down to the author to get it right.

    Further, it would seem that whilst the site takes an 800x800 block to use as the icon, it resizes it to 76x76 which isn't a multiple.  That can skew the image a bit (might be that it's too small to notice) but it would be WAY better to size that icon at 80x80.

  • +1 in reply to Andrew J

    Verint's response on this is:

    "It's a feature, not a bug"

    It can either "Fill available space and crop" or "Scale to fit without cropping", and it does the former by default.

    To change it over is no small task and has to be done manually for each blog application.

    If there are blogs where we don't want it to be cropped, let me know, and I will change it for that blog application.

  • 0 in reply to cstanton

    I shall stick with 2880x800 and see how it goes.  This size is a bit confusing given their stated dimension is 2020x800, makes me think it was a customisation.  Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter as long as we know and any ratio of 2880x800 that allows it to scale without distortion should work.  What about the Icon size?  Is that a customisation or, again, just the way it is?  Converting a 800x800 image to 76/76 seems a bit weird to me, particularly for the sake of 4x4 pixels!

  • 0 in reply to Andrew J

    None of it is a customisation, these are default Verint. It's just the way it is.

Reply Children