Closed
Bug 296197
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
if an image is smaller than the space available for its thumbnail it shouldn't be stretched
Categories
(Firefox :: Tabbed Browser, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: juca, Unassigned)
References
()
Details
(Whiteboard: [cst: request reviews after mac user tests patch])
Attachments
(3 files, 2 obsolete files)
|
5.59 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
|
33.71 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
|
25.22 KB,
image/gif
|
Details |
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050531 Firefox/1.0+ Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050531 Firefox/1.0+ if an image is smaller than the space available for its thumbnail on a tab it shouldn't be resized because it changes its aspect ratio. example: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/print.gif Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Expected Results: when image is small enough, its thumbnail should be the image in real size.
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
sound like a fair request cc CTho
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
Is the bug that the image should not be resized, that the image's aspect ratio shouldn't be changed. I prefer the latter since it would apply to any sized images, not just very small ones, but then I would bet that the former is easier to implement.
Depends on: 125998
You can get it to always enforce the aspect ratio by changing width and height to max-width and max-height here: http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/toolkit/themes/winstripe/global/browser.css#26 I'm not entirely sure if this is adequate, as it means small images wouldn't get scaled up.
OS: Windows 2000 → All
| Reporter | ||
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #3) > I'm not entirely sure if this is adequate, as it means small images wouldn't get > scaled up. That´s it! Small enough images shouldn´t be scaled up. These small images are probably designed to be seen this way. Why would we scale them up if they (suposedely) are good-looking at their original (small) size ? Scaling up would just distort them. I mean, in pseudo-code: if (image.xsize>MAX_TAB_ICON_XSIZE or image.ysize>MAX_TAB_ICON_YSIZE) use_tabicon(scale_down(image)); // scale it down to fit our //MAX_TAB_ICON_XSIZExMAX_TAB_ICON_YSIZE //(16x16) tabicon available space. else use_tabicon(image); //don´t scale it up. //Use the original image.
Assignee: nobody → cst
I couldn't find a unix .tab-icon so I'm not sure what's going on for *nix.
Attachment #189571 -
Flags: superreview?(neil.parkwaycc.co.uk)
Attachment #189571 -
Flags: review?(neil.parkwaycc.co.uk)
Comment 6•19 years ago
|
||
Hmm... if you have a single tab with only a small image loaded then the tab's height is wrong (the width has an issue too but it's not so bad). (In reply to comment #5) >I couldn't find a unix .tab-icon so I'm not sure what's going on for *nix. Most of the unix classic styles are the same as Windows.
Summary: if an image is smaller than the space available for its thumbnail it shouldn't change aspect ratio → if an image is smaller than the space available for its thumbnail it shouldn't be stretched
Attachment #189571 -
Flags: superreview?(neil.parkwaycc.co.uk)
Attachment #189571 -
Flags: review?(neil.parkwaycc.co.uk)
(In reply to comment #6) > Hmm... if you have a single tab with only a small image loaded then the tab's > height is wrong (the width has an issue too but it's not so bad). Based on my understanding of XUL and the effects of the relevant CSS properties, I think we have to add an extra box around the icon with min-width and min-height to ensure that a smaller image doesn't result in a smaller tab. Is that correct?
This one works properly on Windows. Untested on mac, linux. Large images still get forced to 16x16.
Attachment #189571 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #196377 -
Flags: superreview?
Attachment #196377 -
Flags: review?
Comment on attachment 196377 [details] [diff] [review] seamonkey patch, v2 Maybe I should set the flags right ;)
Attachment #196377 -
Flags: superreview?(neil.parkwaycc.co.uk)
Attachment #196377 -
Flags: superreview?
Attachment #196377 -
Flags: review?(db48x)
Attachment #196377 -
Flags: review?
Comment 10•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 196377 [details] [diff] [review] seamonkey patch, v2 You need to patch themes/modern/global/browser.css and themes/classic/global/mac/globalBindings.xml (maybe ask stefan to test?) and I would prefer the .tab-container rule to be before the .tab-icon rule.
Attachment #196377 -
Flags: superreview?(neil.parkwaycc.co.uk) → superreview-
Attachment #196377 -
Flags: review?(db48x)
Needs testing on Mac.
Attachment #196377 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Whiteboard: [cst: request reviews after mac user tests patch]
Comment 12•19 years ago
|
||
The patch works fine on mac, except for one issue: In Classic skin, text/icons in tabs are not vertically centered anymore. I'll attach a screenshot.
Comment 13•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 14•19 years ago
|
||
Hmm, this seems to be a hard one. It appears that the "max-height: 16px" etc
makes both the tab-icon and tab-text loose it's vertical position (see
screenshot). Don't ask me why, but it must have something to do with the native
theming... One way of fixing this is to push everything down 3px by increasing
the top-margin of .tab-icon to 4px total and adding ".tab-text { padding-top:
3px; }" (both in global/mac/browser.css).
Note that there's no need to patch global/mac/globalBindings.xml here. The tab
height/width is always ok without changes in globalbindings.xml.
Now, pushing down icons and text works fine as long as you keep the tabs
native-styled. However, if you for insatnce look at the result with "* {
-moz-appearance: none; }" in your userChrome.css it's all messed up. Now icon
and label text gets pushed down from it's previously correct position (before
pushing down stuff) and extends below the bottom of the tab.
Comment 15•19 years ago
|
||
> Hmm, this seems to be a hard one. No, it isn't. Just modify attachment 197437 [details] [diff] [review] (v3) to include this into themes/classic/global/mac/browser.css: .tabbrowser-tab { -moz-box-align: center; }
Comment 16•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #15) > > Hmm, this seems to be a hard one. > > No, it isn't. Just modify attachment 197437 [details] [diff] [review] [edit] (v3) to include this into > themes/classic/global/mac/browser.css: > > .tabbrowser-tab { > -moz-box-align: center; > } > Hmm... images are now a bit squeezed. Look at the mozilla-icon :/
Comment 17•19 years ago
|
||
Squeezed? No, they just now look like they should...
BTW: I tinkered with DOMI to find the cause for the need of the -moz-box-align rule on Mac - to no avail so far. A tab looks like this:
<tab align=stretch vertical-align=baseline>
<spacer height=25px>
<hbox>
<spacer height=25px>
</tab>
The hbox has (for me) usually a rendered height of 19px, regardless of CTho's patch being applied or not. But without that, the spacers have their set height of 25 and everything looks fine; with that patch, they take the height of the hbox, despite their set height and despite the stretch value...
If someone else is bored and has a Mac, maybe he can tell what's going on here - I can't...
After all, I think the -moz-box-align=center should probably be applied to all tabs, not just Mac Classic.
Comment 18•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #17) > Squeezed? No, they just now look like they should... Take a look at the mozilla-icon, for instance. It's 16x16 px... So is the mozdev icon.
Comment 19•19 years ago
|
||
> > Squeezed? No, they just now look like they should...
>
> Take a look at the mozilla-icon, for instance. It's 16x16 px... So is the
> mozdev icon.
Ah, sorry, you're right. And this squeeze is because the <image> still gets the margin style rules for .tab-icon, even though it can't grow that amount, the parent element has a fixed size. All the former image styles should probably be redirected to this container...
stefanh, mnyromyr, can either of you suggest fixed CSS?
Assignee: cst → stefanh
Updated•17 years ago
|
Assignee: stefanh → nobody
Comment 21•12 years ago
|
||
The standard aspect ratio for favicons is 1:1. Showing favicons at a different aspect ratio hurts the consistency across tabs. A different approach would be to use a generic image favicon for these tabs, but this also removes the ability for users to quickly distinguish between multiple images opened in separate tabs. If users still want this feature, it can be easily achieved via an addon.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•