Senate Sponsored: SWF Suggestion Box (No smiley suggestions!)

[MetalMusicMan]

what is there against swapping img and imglink?

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Deleted member]

as in

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Sigs are not affected by highslide, this is intentional.


Most of the time when someone posts an image, they are just posting an image and they aren't using the image to link to a web page. That is why the primary image tag (

 

[Junahu]

This change retroactively screws with who knows how many threads and posts that use linked images.
I'm sure there are a fair few topics that will have these unfixed image links for months to come, simply because the OP isn't around to update them (or because they don't even know about imglink tags)

Just how many images are posted that neccessitate them being resized anyhow? It seems like a fair few things are being broken in order to fix what I can only assume is a minor quibble.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

As I said, that's why it shouldn't need the [imglink] tag if we can help it, which we will look into. I've installed highslide/lightbox to various other sites and never run into this issue, it seems to be something specific to vbulletin. Normally if an image is linked via bb code, that takes precedence over the image link.

 

[Deleted member]

edit:

ut why the need to install this in the first place? the very few large images on the board were easily caught with the collapse tag.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Firstly, it should not require user effort to prevent breaking the layout. Images should never break it, under any circumstances. This is a very standard rule of how any website should work... the fact that people are actually complaining that images DON'T break the layout is... baffling to say the least.

Second, highslide is a much more effective, user-friendly, and visually-appealing way to view larger images, as opposed to a collapse tag which is ugly and still breaks the layout, and requires user action to enable. It just only breaks the layout after being clicked.

I definitely understand the issue with it overriding images linked to URLs (and that requiring [imglink] effectively also requires user effort, which is somewhat counter to the point). That really shouldn't happen and this is the only forum that I've ever run into that issue with. It likely has something to do with the plugin or something specific to vbulletin. For instance:

http://www.metalmusicman.com/forum/index.php?topic=4060.msg41715#msg41715

You can see that the linked logo image goes to the specified URL, while the images with no links simply link back to themselves via highslide. There is no extra code for this, it simply prioritizes code over [img] code when deciding...ed on from the Geocities era of the 1990's ;)

 

[Deleted member]

I hate the whole zoom link on images that shouldn't have it, and the fact that 800px is a kind of inflexible standard. as I said earlier, dr.net limits the images to the post width instead of a fixed size. the only difference I can see is that vB uses tables (how old fashion lol) and vanilla (which dr.net uses) uses a combi of divs and CSS.

I myself got rid of half the problem by making images not resize (I'll take the odd oversized image on my layout), but the silly click to zoom is still there on small images.

also, people will keep using collapse tags since it's a force of habit, and now peopel will open the collapse to see the image is still small.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Having a zoom link on an image with the same fullsize has absolutely no effect on anything. I'm not sure why this would be worthy of being "hated" in any way. It has no negative effect whatsoever.

People may use collapse tags for a while because they don't realize that they aren't necessary... eventually they will realize it. When things change, these kinds of things happen in the interim. It's totally normal and again not an issue in any way.



The only thing that is an issue is the URL links with images in them, which I very much understand and am looking into.

Everything else you are bringing up is related to a very nit-picky bias that you seem to have with image resizers for whatever reason. They aren't going anywhere. They're standard on pretty much every good website on the internet, I'm not sure what else to tell you about accepting them.

 

[Deleted member]

what'there against disabling it on small images though? if I accidentally click it I get this silly darken screen+ center image thing. rare? yes. but so were large images

look I completely understand the concern of preventing layout breakage but I'm jsut thinking implementation could have been done better.

on a different note. If I would make a red and green recolouring of classic blue, would that be skins worth adding to the globally available skins?

 

[Mic_128]

This change retroactively screws with who knows how many threads and posts that use linked images.
I'm sure there are a fair few topics that will have these unfixed image links for months to come, simply because the OP isn't around to update them (or because they don't even know about imglink tags)

Worst case senario that VB is stupid and we can't fix not needing [imglink] just report the post and put a message that the link needs to be fixed and a mod'll fix it.

 

[Jonkku]

I hate the whole zoom link on images that shouldn't have it, and the fact that 800px is a kind of inflexible standard. as I said earlier, dr.net limits the images to the post width instead of a fixed size. the only difference I can see is that vB uses tables (how old fashion lol) and vanilla (which dr.net uses) uses a combi of divs and CSS.

I myself got rid of half the problem by making images not resize (I'll take the odd oversized image on my layout), but the silly click to zoom is still there on small images.

also, people will keep using collapse tags since it's a force of habit, and now peopel will open the collapse to see the image is still small.

This post kinda mentions on it, but I'll ask directly:

Why does the image shrinking have to crunch everything down to 800px wide or something, and leave hundreds of perfectly fine pixels between the picture and the edge of the post?

Seriously, posting a widescreen picture whose width is above thousands, and having it been packed so small ain't fun.
And then zooming in using the plugin makes the pic so wide there's no way to see it all, so you try to middleclick and scroll to the side, but since it clicks on the picture as well, while you move your mouse to get around, it also moves the picture around, ****ing you up.

Therefore the only sensible thing is to open the picture directly in the browser and let that do the resizing.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

This post kinda mentions on it, but I'll ask directly:

Why does the image shrinking have to crunch everything down to 800px wide or something, and leave hundreds of perfectly fine pixels between the picture and the edge of the post?

Seriously, posting a widescreen picture whose width is above thousands, and having it been packed so small ain't fun.
And then zooming in using the plugin makes the pic so wide there's no way to see it all, so you try to middleclick and scroll to the side, but since it clicks on the picture as well, while you move your mouse to get around, it also moves the picture around, ****ing you up.

Therefore the only sensible thing is to open the picture directly in the browser and let that do the resizing.

Some people have very low res monitors.

 

[Deleted member]

then make it so it resizes to the page width?
I know it's possible

 

[Zankoku]

Seriously, posting a widescreen picture whose width is above thousands, and having it been packed so small ain't fun.
And then zooming in using the plugin makes the pic so wide there's no way to see it all, so you try to middleclick and scroll to the side, but since it clicks on the picture as well, while you move your mouse to get around, it also moves the picture around, ****ing you up.

Wait, what? Pretty sure you can move the image around by dragging it, once you have it zoomed in.

 

[Spelt]

who has a browser size lower than 1024x768 in these days? e_e
and even that resolution is pretty extinct.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

who has a browser size lower than 1024x768 in these days? e_e
and even that resolution is pretty extinct.

Almost no one-- it's not 800px because of 800x600 resolution, it's 800px because there are other things in the layout that take up horizontal space besides the image itself. So 800px is as large as an image can be in the 1024x768 screen size.

 

[Zajice]

I had 1024xx768 simply because I couldn't afford a new monitor. But now that I have 1900 x 1080, I can see the effects.

And it also made me realize Revolution looks god awful. Why is it all squished together when there's like twice as much screen space it could be using??

 

[Deleted member]

revo has a fixed width. I thought about fixing it at some point but the section headers needed a redraw

/lazy etc

 

[Wave⁂]

revo has a fixed width. I thought about fixing it at some point but the section headers needed a redraw

/lazy etc

By "redraw", I'm guessing that section headers are images? Isn't it possible to replace them with just text?

 

[Deleted member]

not through just CSS. I can ony replace images with other images

edit:
if you have stylish, try this:

body>table{
width: 90%
}


it's not bad, it just needs some work

 

[Zajice]

Premmie also get Cyborg (and child of Cyborg)

We're working on something skinwise, will be a while til it's ready though.

Wait, what? What's "Cyborg?" A skin? Cause I don't see it.

 

[Deleted member]

disco party
orange fever
leekskin
ambigutor

those are the ones I see but I could care less since I will always stick to orange fever

 

[MetalMusicMan]

After a little hacking, tags wrapped around [IMG] tags now...09/12/mario300_narrowweb__300x392,0.jpg[/IMG]



note: this is only currently fixed on the Revo skin, but will be added to others.

 

[Lythium]

Can you fix the Smash Artist usergroup? It kinda got the axe when all the colours got taken away, but Smash Writers still have their orangeness.

 

[Jonkku]

Wait, what? Pretty sure you can move the image around by dragging it, once you have it zoomed in.

Well yeah, exactly:

so you try to middleclick and scroll to the side, but since it clicks on the picture as well, while you move your mouse to get around, it also moves the picture around, ****ing you up.

Also I'd like to point out how you added this plugin for the sole purpose of people not having to use collapse-tags with big images, and without the fear of breaking layout, but it's in javascript, so it's loaded only after everything else on the page, including those huge pictures that take a long time. And that is, if the pictures are ever even fully loaded.

If there's anything left unloaded on the page, both either because of the user stopping from loading, or simply being unable to connect somewhere, then none of the pics are resized down.

Can't also forget people who keep JavaScript off or blocked for a reason or another.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

You drag the picture with left mouse, Jonkku. Not middle mouse. Simple as that.

If people have Javascript turned off then it just loads in a new window. Catering primarily to security-philes who turn off every feature of their browser "for safety" isn't really rational, but the script doesn't hurt them in any way if they choose to do so. That's as much as you can ask for.

The loading / late resize won't be an issue because we're going to force resize via CSS anyway.



Imageviewer scripts are standard on the vast majority of websites. You have no reason to fight this so vehemently.

 

[Deleted member]

oh wow that really is an argument, that's like saying I should be on facebook because a lot of people use it.

nothing was broken before
and the implementation of this went pretty eh too so we don't see why this was necessary.
and be fair, who is really happy with this outside of the Devs and admins?

but I'll stop ranting. just let me know when you make the CSS switch so I can update my scripts

 

[Jonkku]

You drag the picture with left mouse, Jonkku. Not middle mouse. Simple as that.

"Oh no, there's not any complaints about this thing other people than me have gotten used to. I must force them to learn different"

Scrolling works simply by me moving my mouse slightly to the direction where I want to go, and it goes there.
Moving the image works by clicking and dragging to the opposite direction, and in worst cases requires a lot of it, and thus lots of circling motion with your wrist.

From earlier

it's 800px because there are other things in the layout that take up horizontal space besides the image itself. So 800px is as large as an image can be in the 1024x768 screen size.

How is that in anyway "as large as the image can be"? And where are the other things, besides the postbit that's like 150px or something?

Spoiler

If you're not gonna cater to people who don't use javascript, then why do you cater to people who use anciently small resolutions like 1024x768?

You have no reason to fight this so vehemently.

I have as much reason as you had reasons to implement it.

 

[Wave⁂]

If people have Javascript turned off then it just loads in a new window.

So basically, you're telling me to block Javascript on SWF.

 

[DtJ Glyphmoney]

I actually like the new changes, they probably should have been done a long time ago.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

nothing was broken before

The layout was broken. You know, because images broke it. That's what was broken...

"Oh no, there's not any complaints about this thing other people than me have gotten used to. I must force them to learn different"

This makes no sense on its own, and furthermore has nothing to do with anything I have said. Drivel.

Scrolling works simply by me moving my mouse slightly to the direction where I want to go, and it goes there.
Moving the image works by clicking and dragging to the opposite direction, and in worst cases requires a lot of it, and thus lots of circling motion with your wrist.

Is this a serious complaint?

If you're not gonna cater to people who don't use javascript, then why do you cater to people who use anciently small resolutions like 1024x768?

Because there are far, far fewer people who choose to block all scripts than there are who run in a lower resolution... 1024x768 is on the cusp of not being worth supporting, but we're not quite at the point where we should be forsaking it yet. It has more time before it's in the resolution graveyard with 800x600. I don't like supporting it, I think it's stupid, but you have to cater to a wide audience when it comes to resolutions, it's the best practice.

I have as much reason as you had reasons to implement it.

Again, seriously?

I actually like the new changes, they probably should have been done a long time ago.

Thank you for not being from a remote cave where everyone loves broken layouts and unmanaged content and hates sensible organization and useful scripts.

 

[Deleted member]

EDIT(since I'm getting tired of this):

these are the three things I think should be addressed:
-Make pictures resize to post width rather than 800px
-Let smaller images not be affected by this in general
-make the zoom link not the entire picture
(Other site I know has this tiny magnifying glass in the top left)
[-allow user to disable the plugin, should not be much against this]

If those things can be adressed I'm totally fine with this plugin, so let's get back on-topic, AKA people suggesting cool stuff.

EDIT
ok the first point can be easily adressed with:

img[width="800"]{
width: auto !important;
max-width: 100%!important;
height: auto!important;
}

(in revo the percentage needs to be a value but I don't know how wide posts are in there)
in the CSS. minus the zoom function this pretty much replaces the entire plugin

quad-EDIT:
ok so the percentage doesn't work in FF for some reason (I run chrome), gimme a minute to find out why

 

[DtJ Composer]

Not that the rest of the suggestions haven't followed this same sort of pattern lol

 

[Wave⁂]

Can we make TPK an aesthetic admin now or what

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

I don't know if this has been said or not. But on the revolution skin, the Wiki and Network icons are missing from the top of the page. These have been missing for about a month now. You can however find them if you click on the News icon.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

I don't know if this has been said or not. But on the revolution skin, the Wiki and Network icons are missing from the top of the page. These have been missing for about a month now. You can however find them if you click on the News icon.

I've been told that these will be addressed briefly.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Can this site tone down the word filters? I understand keeping it pg-13 or w/e the target age is, but filtering words that aren't swears but are common swear typos is too much. It is getting to the point where it is filtering out words that are perfectly acceptable and making standard communication difficult. For example, if I wanted to talk about an anime character whose name is spelled f-u-k-o, I would be unable to mention her name ***o as the first 3 letters are censored.

I am not against the word filter on inappropriate words, but it is going too far to censor words like this. There will always be work around ways to spell the words, which is why there are moderators to give out infractions. To censor words that are not words at all simply gets in the way of people who are trying to carry legitimate conversation. A filter dodger can change their word to a different form, but the person who is making no fault can't.



edit- i might as well give some examples of easy filter work arounds:

There are dozens and dozens of these, and the more you try to stop these work arounds the more you are going to hurt legitimate conversion.


So please, can you go back to censoring the words themselves and using moderators to punish those who abuse work arounds?

I agree with the above post. Censors are easy to dodge if you really want to curse, and that's what mods are there for. Censoring out pseuso-curses can prove annoying in examples such as the one above. If someone says "***" when they mean "****", they should be infracted, but that doesn't mean "***" should be censored.

That said, if you really want to reference that Anime character, Fuko, it's easy to get around the censor and you won't be infracted because you're not using those letters in the explicit sense.

Posting it here with the hopes that a more swift action can be taken.

 

[Zajice]

Make TPK a developer imo.

 

[Junahu]

After a little hacking, tags wrapped around [IMG] tags now...ooray, this is muchly appreciated. Thank you.