05-02-14 04:29 AM
69 123
tools
  1. mnc76's Avatar
    OK. A bit dramatic lol. But, in usability terms for 2014, not OVERLY off the mark.

    But it's easily far worse than any other messaging app I've ever used. And not just a bit worst, but literally 10s of times worst.

    Not only does the recipient have to long press a pic to start the involved process of getting a high rez pic, but they then have to know to select "request high quality". This is is completely undiscoverable to 99.999% of users unless they have come to CrackBerry to specifically figure out how to do this....

    BUT!!!! It gets better...

    When the recipient requests the high rez version (get this!), the SENDER has to be online to ALLOW the download of the high rez version!!! So if you send a pic that your friend doesn't look at until a couple of days later, they can't see it at full rez unless you are both ONLINE and you are available to respond to the "allow high rez pic download" BBM request.

    I would continue with a string of insults about how bad this is, but, I'm sure that the simple description of how the system *actually works* should be enough to get that same point across.

    On Whatsapp, here's what we do:

    1. Select picture.
    2. Click Send
    3. High rez version of pic appears on recipient's phone.

    That's it.

    Posted via CB10
    LuisCast, yasmar, JamesIV and 13 others like this.
    04-06-14 01:16 AM
  2. SK122387's Avatar
    To be fair, no one is ever "offline" on BBM. If you have it, you're always "online." There's no signing out.

    I think the sender has to be online and "allow" or "accept" the request for the High Quality picture because it's a data transfer, and if someone's on a plan with limited data or has already exceeded the allotted amount, sending a HQ picture could cost them.

    This is similar to images, by default, not downloading automatically in emails. Loading images takes up data, and if you do it all the time, it uses your data, which could be scarce or expensive.



    Posted via CB10
    04-06-14 01:20 AM
  3. mnc76's Avatar
    To be fair, no one is ever "offline" on BBM. If you have it, you're always "online." There's no signing out.

    I think the sender has to be online and "allow" or "accept" the request for the High Quality picture because it's a data transfer, and if someone's on a plan with limited data or has already exceeded the allotted amount, sending a HQ picture could cost them.

    This is similar to images, by default, not downloading automatically in emails. Loading images takes up data, and if you do it all the time, it uses your data, which could be scarce or expensive.



    Posted via CB10
    OK, 'technically' true. But the reality is, that the sender must be awake, and in a position to access their cell phone at the exact moment the recipient wants the high rez pic. If they aren't, then the recipient has to wait.

    With Whatsapp, the user simply gets a high quality pic right from the start. You will never get complaints about how "crappy" all the pics you send look. You will never spend time editing a 1 meg pic only for the recipient to get a horrible looking looking version that has been reduced from 1 meg to 23 kilobytes.

    Posted via CB10
    04-06-14 01:26 AM
  4. boody78's Avatar
    Like everything else, it should just be an option.

    Posted via CB10
    Man@Arms likes this.
    04-06-14 01:30 AM
  5. suneel_r's Avatar
    No the user doesn't. On whatsapp, it's a large image already but it's highly compressed. There's no other option. Certainly not to send, a 2mb image atleast. It's almost always a few Kbs.
    Now, on bbm, maybe the compression can be better to make the initial image better, but the sending the entire image, which can sometimes be a 5mb poster, is pretty good.
    Nothing's really an abomination. Except maybe the way whatsapp stores images in your media folder.

    Posted via CB10
    jaydee5799 and Bor Navas like this.
    04-06-14 01:31 AM
  6. mnc76's Avatar
    No the user doesn't. On whatsapp, it's a large image already but it's highly compressed. There's no other option. Certainly not to send, a 2mb image atleast. It's almost always a few Kbs.
    Now, on bbm, maybe the compression can be better to make the initial image better, but the sending the entire image, which can sometimes be a 5mb poster, is pretty good.
    Nothing's really an abomination. Except maybe the way whatsapp stores images in your media folder.

    Posted via CB10
    Yes Whatsapp does compress, but it never takes a pic in the megabyte range and compress it to something in the 20-30 KILOBYTE range.

    That is absurd in 2014 IMO.

    From an end user perspective (which is all that really matters in the end), Whatsapp pics look crisp and clear on modern cell phone screens (which are typically at least 720p).

    BBM pics look rough.

    Also, Whatsapp users get these crisp images with no fuss. There is no multi step process to go through, or learn (assuming you ever even find out there is even a way to get high rez pics!).

    Posted via CB10
    04-06-14 01:37 AM
  7. suneel_r's Avatar
    Ok, the compression in bbm has to change correct. And 720 horizontal lines or otherwise, even if it sends only a 360 pixel wide image, it can still be sharp. But the jpeg compression seems definitely to be bad. So if that changes, the HQ request should stay. It's a good feature when my graphics person sends illustrations.

    Posted via CB10
    04-06-14 01:43 AM
  8. mnc76's Avatar
    Ok, the compression in bbm has to change correct. And 720 horizontal lines or otherwise, even if it sends only a 360 pixel wide image, it can still be sharp. But the jpeg compression seems definitely to be bad. So if that changes, the HQ request should stay. It's a good feature when my graphics person sends illustrations.

    Posted via CB10
    The only things that have to change are:

    1. The method required to get high rez pics must be "in the user's face", not a secret only Crackberry veterans know about.

    2. The sender should not need to "OK" a request for the high rez version.


    Posted via CB10
    04-06-14 01:46 AM
  9. Apollo_IV's Avatar
    I wholeheartedly agree and I think anyone willing to defend this pos feature is in serious denial or hasn't got any friends to share pictures with.

    Keep Moving my ***
    04-06-14 01:49 AM
  10. badiyee's Avatar
    so having to be able to request and receive for high resolution picture is a bad thing?

    I recall somebody sending I think, 15mb size pic over this.

    OR was it a BBM attachment? I forgot.
    sk8er_tor likes this.
    04-06-14 01:50 AM
  11. suneel_r's Avatar
    It can't get anymore in the face though! In the trackpad days it was one click away, now it's press and hold. The HQ request that is.

    Perhaps they can implement the swipe lift and then to the side feature like in the camera. So you view, request HQ, all in one swipe. That would be very BB10ish and a reduced number steps.

    Sender okaying: if your image is 4mb, and in case you're simultaneously streaming media or are in a place with bad reception, someone else yanking an image from your phone will choke the bandwidth. Imagine if you're on two chats and that happens.. I agree the initial compression should be higher quality. But for large images, (maybe the sender has a setting to change, in case <1mb approve all hq requests) sender approval is a good thing.

    And yes if someone forgets, there's the PING!!!!!

    Posted via CB10
    MaxxxBerry23 likes this.
    04-06-14 01:53 AM
  12. suneel_r's Avatar
    I wholeheartedly agree and I think anyone willing to defend this pos feature is in serious denial or hasn't got any friends to share pictures with.

    Keep Moving my ***
    Is it just possible to like something without "being in denial"?? Hehe, the image compression thing is something I've sent in feedback mails in the last two updates of bbm. But the sender approval for large files only makes sense.

    You needn't "agree" or "disagree" in a black or white fashion. Oh! It's an internet forum! Silly me.

    Posted via CB10
    04-06-14 01:55 AM
  13. badiyee's Avatar
    It can't get anymore in the face though! In the trackpad days it was one click away, now it's press and hold. The HQ request that is.

    Perhaps they can implement the swipe lift and then to the side feature like in the camera. So you view, request HQ, all in one swipe. That would be very BB10ish and a reduced number steps.

    Sender okaying: if your image is 4mb, and in case you're simultaneously streaming media or are in a place with bad reception, someone else yanking an image from your phone will choke the bandwidth. Imagine if you're on two chats and that happens.. I agree the initial compression should be higher quality. But for large images, (maybe the sender has a setting to change, in case <1mb approve all hq requests) sender approval is a good thing.

    And yes if someone forgets, there's the PING!!!!!

    Posted via CB10
    I am thinking along the lines that nothing gets stored in the servers.
    04-06-14 01:56 AM
  14. suneel_r's Avatar
    Yeah, so if it isn't in the servers, it Has to come straight from sender. And I think a sender should be in charge of what data leaves their phone. Specially in the mb's. If you're on roaming data, and the receiver yanks images without consent, that'd be murder! Lol

    Posted via CB10
    Zirak, sk8er_tor, gokulesh and 1 others like this.
    04-06-14 01:58 AM
  15. mnc76's Avatar
    It can't get anymore in the face though! In the trackpad days it was one click away, now it's press and hold. The HQ request that is.

    Perhaps they can implement the swipe lift and then to the side feature like in the camera. So you view, request HQ, all in one swipe. That would be very BB10ish and a reduced number steps.

    Sender okaying: if your image is 4mb, and in case you're simultaneously streaming media or are in a place with bad reception, someone else yanking an image from your phone will choke the bandwidth. Imagine if you're on two chats and that happens.. I agree the initial compression should be higher quality. But for large images, (maybe the sender has a setting to change, in case <1mb approve all hq requests) sender approval is a good thing.

    And yes if someone forgets, there's the PING!!!!!

    Posted via CB10
    We're not talking about getting the full "15" or even "4 meg" original image. We're talking about something that the end user is going to think looks clear and crisp on their device. (even if it is actually compressed -- its all about the end user experience)

    If they actually want the full original "full resolution" pic, then -- sure -- they should request it (to get the full 4 or 15 megs, or whatever it is)

    But the default pic that is sent should look good on their device.

    Its 2014, and most Web pages are in the multi-megabyte range, so why are we so worried about 230 - 430 k images?

    This isn't 2007 anymore folks? This system is antiquated. It's based on what the average pic size was 6+ years ago or more.

    Posted via CB10
    04-06-14 02:00 AM
  16. suneel_r's Avatar
    My god, I think in 3 posts I've agreed that the compression standard has to get better. I'm starting to think you're replying without reading.

    To summarise.
    1) the initial compression should get better. I've sent feedback each time after the recent updates, I suggest you do the same.

    2) the hq full res request is very useful, and maybe it needs a ui change. But sender consent is also useful and shouldn't be done away with.

    For heavens sake stop repeating what year it isn't, I haven't woken up from a coma.

    Posted via CB10
    04-06-14 02:03 AM
  17. mnc76's Avatar
    My god, I think in 3 posts I've agreed that the compression standard has to get better. I'm starting to think you're replying without reading.

    To summarise.
    1) the initial compression should get better. I've sent feedback each time after the recent updates, I suggest you do the same.

    2) the hq full res request is very useful, and maybe it needs a ui change. But sender consent is also useful and shouldn't be done away with.

    For heavens sake stop repeating what year it isn't, I haven't woken up from a coma.

    Posted via CB10
    Why is sender consent "very useful" in order for the recipient to get a (possibly compressed image) that looks clear and crisp on their device (versus a 20-30 kilobyte pic that looks pixelated on their device).

    Please explain. (Keeping in mind that this is 14 years into "the year 2000" lol). These days just the javascript and CSS on a webpage is typically more than 20-30 KB!

    Even at 1 megabit per second, you can send 122 kilobytes in a single second.
    04-06-14 02:07 AM
  18. suneel_r's Avatar
    Lol, did you read my first point?
    For your benefit:
    1) the initial compression should get better. I've sent feedback each time after the recent updates, I suggest you do the same.

    Since either you didn't read or didn't understand:
    The initial compression bbm applies should be of a better quality than what it is now.

    I agree with you on that part, do you understand that?? I AGREE.

    In Case, a user WANTS a full image. The consent thing is good for data monitoring. Again, this can be a settings feature
    HQ Image Request: Automatically send HQ images <1mb (yes) (no)

    Posted via CB10
    04-06-14 02:12 AM
  19. suneel_r's Avatar
    There really is no point explaining right, here I'm agreeing with you and you aren't even reading. *sigh* wasn't like this back in the day...

    Posted via CB10
    bobauckland and Nharzhool like this.
    04-06-14 02:13 AM
  20. mnc76's Avatar
    Lol, did you read my first point?
    For your benefit:
    1) the initial compression should get better. I've sent feedback each time after the recent updates, I suggest you do the same.

    Since either you didn't read or didn't understand:
    The initial compression bbm applies should be of a better quality than what it is now.

    I agree with you on that part, do you understand that?? I AGREE.

    In Case, a user WANTS a full image. The consent thing is good for data monitoring. Again, this can be a settings feature
    HQ Image Request: Automatically send HQ images <1mb (yes) (no)

    Posted via CB10
    I'm sorry, but there is only so much you can do with 30 kB if the original image is in the megabyte range. Your expectation of how good compression can possibly be is unrealistic.
    04-06-14 02:15 AM
  21. suneel_r's Avatar
    When did I state the 30kb limit? You've been going on about 30kbs, No, all I said was compression was necessary. Just the way WhatsApp does it. They seem to have good conversions, some really good images (depending on number of colours I guess) that I've got on WhatsApp are 20/30/40kb.. some of the larger images are >80kb... which is fine... But even within 80 or a 100kb, the posterisation and artefacts in WhatsApp seem to be well in control for images (text in images sometimes seems to get garbled though), so on that regard. Yes, BBM needs to change. And the HQ request, while for me it's been second nature to use it, perhaps new users would need assistance. so like I said, the image preview in the camera app, that's a good gesture to implement here too... swipe the image sideways, and two buttons that can be selected, one for HQ request, one to save to phone/card..
    04-06-14 02:21 AM
  22. mnc76's Avatar
    When did I state the 30kb limit? You've been going on about 30kbs, No, all I said was compression was necessary. Just the way WhatsApp does it. They seem to have good conversions, some really good images (depending on number of colours I guess) that I've got on WhatsApp are 20/30/40kb.. some of the larger images are >80kb... which is fine... But even within 80 or a 100kb, the posterisation and artefacts in WhatsApp seem to be well in control for images (text in images sometimes seems to get garbled though), so on that regard. Yes, BBM needs to change. And the HQ request, while for me it's been second nature to use it, perhaps new users would need assistance. so like I said, the image preview in the camera app, that's a good gesture to implement here too... swipe the image sideways, and two buttons that can be selected, one for HQ request, one to save to phone/card..
    OK. Fair enough. I have clear/crisp whatsapp images as low as 30KB, but I also have some as high as 400KB. I've never sent or recieved a BBM image that went out at 400K.

    The determination of the amount of data used should be based on how well the image can be compressed (as whatsapp does). This is what we need for BBM.

    And if the user wants the FULL (original) resolution then (and only then) should they have to go through the whole "request hig rez" process. And that process should be far more discoverable than it is. I had to search CrackBerry this very evening to send a BBM message to my friend to just explain to them how to do this for a pic I sent earlier. And I've been a BB user for years now!

    This is my problem with BBM's picture system. When even diehard BlackBerry fans have to look this up, how do we expect regular (and especially new) user's to just "stumble upon it"?
    kbz1960 and LuisCast like this.
    04-06-14 02:32 AM
  23. suneel_r's Avatar
    Hehe, I guess BB likes making us search for things. Think of it like a treasure hunt. It's all there. And when you find it, you win!! A basic feature!!! ding ding ding!!! But honestly, some of the features BB provides natively, if they were more widely known.. well, yeah that's another thread, another time... When I switched to BB10 from my Bold, one of the first things i checked for was HQ request, because I used it so regularly on the 9780. And I hate to admit it, but pressing the BBbutton/menukey/trackpad was so much more MY thing than this touchscreen press and hold... The Q20 shall be our saviour and it shall love us all!!!
    LuisCast likes this.
    04-06-14 02:36 AM
  24. mnc76's Avatar
    Hehe, I guess BB likes making us search for things. Think of it like a treasure hunt. It's all there. And when you find it, you win!! A basic feature!!! ding ding ding!!! But honestly, some of the features BB provides natively, if they were more widely known.. well, yeah that's another thread, another time... When I switched to BB10 from my Bold, one of the first things i checked for was HQ request, because I used it so regularly on the 9780. And I hate to admit it, but pressing the BBbutton/menukey/trackpad was so much more MY thing than this touchscreen press and hold... The Q20 shall be our saviour and it shall love us all!!!
    A LOT of oldschool BB users are going to love the Q20.

    To summarize, my points would be:

    1. Don't put a 20-30K limit on images
    2. If a pic can look clear when compressed to 30 or fewer KB, then -- by all means -- send it at 30KB. But if it can't, then don't worry about sending a pic in the 100s of KBs. The user experience is the most important factor: If giving users the clear pics they expect happens to require more KBs, then do it. (But only if you need to)
    3. Make the process for getting the original image more discoverable. Even something as simple as putting a link/button below an image that has the text "get hi rez" on it would be enough.
      (And I'll note that Whatsapp has no way that I'm aware of to get the original image. You are stuck with whatever compressed image they decide to send you. So this would be a unique feature for BBM)
    4. Don't require the sender to "OK" the download of the high rez image. They have already tacitly agreed (by their initial message) to send the recipient this image. You don't need to ask them again.
      (If BBM detects that they are roaming, then this could be a useful option though)
    Last edited by mnc76; 04-06-14 at 03:13 AM.
    LuisCast, CyberMan2013 and Clanked like this.
    04-06-14 02:47 AM
  25. menshawy's Avatar
    Why you don't look at it as more sufficient and faster to get you going? Transferring 20kb is definitely faster than transferring 2 or 3 megabytes. It gets the job done. And it gets it done faster than the almighty WhatsApp. Maybe BlackBerry needs to include some tutorials to teach the average user about the hidden secrets

    Posted via CB10
    04-06-14 03:30 AM
69 123

Similar Threads

  1. J.Cole, Fabolous, Ace Hood, and now Lil Wayne (photo)
    By Michelasmar in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-10-14, 02:58 PM
  2. Glympse on BBM? Cool!
    By Jose Casiano in forum General BBM Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-06-14, 11:50 PM
  3. can't seem to transfer BBM data from Bold 9780 to Z10
    By tvmaster in forum BlackBerry Z10
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-05-14, 08:31 PM
  4. Glympse on BBM? Cool!
    By Jose Casiano in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-05-14, 04:04 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD