Attachments vs Inline Picts?

[Harv]

<font color=blue>perhaps you should delete the [image] tag</font color=blue>

<font color=blue>maybe I will look into only allowing the image tag in the photo forum...</font color=blue>

YIKES! /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif

I think the [image] tag is a wonderful tool! I would rather see limits, guidelines or a switch to turn them on or off (in preferences plus a per message override). I think there is great value in having picts and text together when appropriate, especially if the file size is kept reasonable:

Hate to see such capability disappear altogether.

Oops! There goes another one.

Alternatively, maybe Muhammad could come up with a simple mechanism for creating the kind of attachment I've included here. It's always fun to create more work for Muhammad. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

 

[Wheeldog]

I have a cable modem so I don't get too bothered by slower download speeds due to the in-line graphics. They are very helpful when used with discretion, and I'd hate to lose the capability.

What if people started putting a standard note in the title of their posts, like "PIC" or "IMAGE INCLUDED" as a courtesy to those folks with slower connections?

 

[looch]

Has anyone here heard of Lynx? It's a freeware, "text only" web browser. I've tried it out and it is very cheesey, but it is unbeatable in the speed department. Might be something to consider by those who suffer from < 26K connections. You can get a Win32 binary at http://www.jim.spath.com/lynx_win32/.

I can understand the reasoning for removing the image tag. Is there some way to only allow to tag the image that is in the "signature" portion of the user's basic profile?

 

[glennmac]

I don't understand the technical terms, but I certainly don't think we should hitch our plow to the slowest horses. That is, I don't think we should technologically hamstring the evolution of this site for the benefit of those who (unfortunately) have slow connections. That's retrograde and devolutionary.

I like the pictures and like things the way they are--innovative. I, too, dont have enough time to read things here, but I think the answer is to skip the pictures if you dont want to see them.

 

[Bird]

<font color=blue>don't think we should hitch our plow to the slowest horses</font color=blue>

Glennmac, are you trying to get rid of me and MChalkley?/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Bird

 

[MarkV]

<font color=blue>are you trying to get rid of me and MChalkley?</font color=blue>

Not me Bird, I've picked up more from you and Mark than any of the photos, although I do like the photos.

MarkV

 

[Bird]

Actually, Mark, I would prefer the inline pictures (love the information and entertainment provided by John Miller III) if it weren't for these two cans and a string that pass for phone lines out here in the country./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Bird

 

[Muhammad]

Ok, maybe something in the middle...

Inline images allowed if they are...

Smaller than 600x400 pixels, smaller than 30k. Fact is, there are 57k+ messages and it's not like the majority of messages have images in them. Very few do, looking at the percentage.

I've seen a few images that are technical documents or something, and they are so large that they expand the tables of the message pages. This is what I want to avoid and eliminate. If an image is that big, it should be linked to.

We probably can't do a whole lot with the image markup tag in terms of limiting it, or turning images on or off by message or by forum, or even as an overall preference. The code is in the message as HTML, and your browser is going to read it.

 

[glennmac]

Well, while I'm on this insult-all-the-Star-Members roll, I will also suggest to Muhammad that he needn't start slinging oil around just because their are a minute number of ... er ... squeaky wheels. I think the growth and popularity of this site speak for themselves, and I think a lot of that success is due to the clever, informative and innovative messages that a lot of creative people are taking time to post.

(I'm gettin out Dodge, now.)

 

[ERNIEB]

That sounds pretty good, I have the same problem as Bird. A little better then the days of 2 shorts and 1 long, but not much.

Ernie