Canindia Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Feature missing in 3.2 Option to disable images in posts (smilies and posted images etc.) [img] [/img] This is almost shocking. What a glaring, indefensible mistake this is. Here are three important reasons off the top of my head why this functionality is critical to some readers: 1. Browsing forums at work. Images call a great deal of attention to your activity. 2. Bandwidth. Not everyone rocks the FIOS connection IPS... 3. Racy avatars, etc... One may be interested in reading about their favorite sports teams, but would rather not have half naked chicks on their screen around their young kids. Now, there is no option to accommodate everyone. Matt can you please address this issue. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Matt Posted August 12, 2011 Management Share Posted August 12, 2011 In Safari: In FireFox: I don't see a need for software to emulate browser functionality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimdock Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Thanks for replying Matt, The problem is that that blocks ALL images. I do not want them to have to disable images for all websites or all the images for the forum for that matter. Just the 'content' images. I think there is a pretty big difference between the two and the browser does nothing of the sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zone Plate Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 In Safari: [img] [/img] In FireFox: [img] [/img] I don't see a need for software to emulate browser functionality. Wow. You are far too intelligent to pass off that argument as even remotely equivalent to anyone. Non-answers like that just infuriate people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zone Plate Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Since we are on the topic of images, can anyone tell me if the settings still exist to restrict guests, etc... from viewing avatars/sigs/attachments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WraithWatcher Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Since we are on the topic of images, can anyone tell me if the settings still exist to restrict guests, etc... from viewing avatars/sigs/attachments? Probably not, they probably expect Guests to set their browsers to do all the work for them, so we just need to hope all guests set to not see them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimdock Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 [img] [/img] Wow. You are far too intelligent to pass off that argument as even remotely equivalent to anyone. Non-answers like that just infuriate people. I think there is no need for that kind of response. This is an exchange of ideas and software development usually goes like that. Sometimes what seems logical may not be. Besides if we piss the devs off chances are they will not take our suggestions too seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmacleo Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'm not sure why people want the old fashion trash can while we have a better system for dealing with deleted contents? with the old system, there was no straight forward method to restore deleted posts to their original topics unless you use the merge thingie which I've never mastered! Now you can do it with nothing more than a click of a mouse button. who says its better? I don't. I have a use for it but I also had more of a use for trashcan style. I don't use my forum like you use yours and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zone Plate Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I think there is no need for that kind of response. This is an exchange of ideas and software development usually goes like that. Sometimes what seems logical may not be. Besides if we piss the devs off chances are they will not take our suggestions too seriously. What was wrong with my response? I found Matt's answer to be woefully unrealistic in the real world and stated that. I suspect Matt very well knows he was reaching there, as I doubt this was the reason the feature was removed. It very much reads as a justification after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Ian Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 [img] [/img] Wow. You are far too intelligent to pass off that argument as even remotely equivalent to anyone. Non-answers like that just infuriate people. I would actually say that for the reasons given (i.e. viewing from work) that is the best solution anyway - as they could use the one browser for all non-work hiding all images and another for work. However I have never yet seen a single worker in all my years when I was a computer engineer hiding images - they all wanted to view the pages will all images. Nothing to stop you from having an alternative skin for 'work' which would then hide images, pretty much like the mobile skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilC Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I don't see a need for software to emulate browser functionality. And the solution for my users who don't have the necessary access rights due to work / school IT policies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewis P Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 And the solution for my users who don't have the necessary access rights due to work / school IT policies? They should be working at work and learning at school, not visiting forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Is the best justification for hiding images in posts that "it allows people who are at work (and probably should be working...) to browse my forums without getting caught"? If so, that doesn't seem like a very good justification for a feature that otherwise has no use, and was originally intended to help reduce bandwidth when 56K modems were all the rage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimdock Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Brandon, I think it is a great justification. If they don't go to my forum because they can't hide these images and don't want to disable all images for all pages that means I will lose users. Since a lot of my users rely on it that means trafiic in my forum will be impacted in a negative way. How is that not a good justification? I believe in this case you may be looking too much at what works for IPS forum and not for forums in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheatmaster30 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 On the topic of avatars, there's still no good reason avatar galleries aren't available. They're basically required on topic specific forums (hint, we're not all running tech or general discussion forums here, if your site is about gaming/sports/a TV show/film series/etc, then you pretty much require topic specific avatars as easily available), there's zero security risk (because only staff upload default avatars, and they're hosted on site), and the feature has been around for years. There's not one good justification for removing it. And you know, the customer is always right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimdock Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 What was wrong with my response? I found Matt's answer to be woefully unrealistic in the real world and stated that. I suspect Matt very well knows he was reaching there, as I doubt this was the reason the feature was removed. It very much reads as a justification after the fact. Then never mind. Maybe I was reading too much into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zone Plate Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Is the best justification for hiding images in posts that "it allows people who are at work (and probably should be working...) to browse my forums without getting caught"? If so, that doesn't seem like a very good justification for a feature that otherwise has no use, and was originally intended to help reduce bandwidth when 56K modems were all the rage. Brandon, is the functionality to hide these images from guests or other user groups still there? If so, I think these responses from IPS are incredibly weak. I would be much more satisfied with "because this is what we want to do and what we say goes..." because really, that is clearly the real answer here. I have a hard time believing Matt was bored and started pontificating on the roles of never-used browser features and decided he had right this wrong. Your response about bandwidth and modems is unfortunately rather dismissive of other people's situations. Remember, you guys REMOVED this code. It already existed. No one asked for anything new, just continuation of what is already there. No one asking you to rush to create features for the burgeoning 56k modem users. However, you don't have to step on the necks of people who are bandwidth-limited either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Just want to clarify that using a remote avatar through a URL and the avatar gallery are two completely different things. Having a remote avatar to any URL is a security risk, but has nothing to do with the gallery. I personally don't like the gallery. I'd rather people be more original and upload their own avatar that fits them. With the gallery you'd see the same avatar being used a dozen times. Without the gallery you don't see that anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Ian Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Just want to clarify that using a remote avatar through a URL and the avatar gallery are two completely different things. Having a remote avatar to any URL is a security risk, but has nothing to do with the gallery. I personally don't like the gallery. I'd rather people be more original and upload their own avatar that fits them. With the gallery you'd see the same avatar being used a dozen times. Without the gallery you don't see that anymore. Which does not suit all forums - would you want to see 10 different versions (some awful) of the same image on a thread on your site? I agree that people should be more original, but we are talking about people who could not tell you what version of a browser they are running! So have little chance of getting to grips with a graphics package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbins Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I take it the option has been removed to see who has given you negative and positive rep? I have the rep type set to positive and negative, but when I click on the rep number in the thread there is no longer a popup box with that information in. EDIT: I just noticed it actually works on mine, but I can't see who has negative repped other members.... I used to be able to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellisa Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 hiding images is the best feature any browser have, else i can not be here using the internet due to very slow internet in my region. i like over 150$ for 256kbps and 4gb bandwidth limit a month. who can live with it? and yeah when i open some of my adult websites, i tend to moderate stuff and not to look at the ladies, so hiding images is very important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Modding Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Brandon, REMOVING that feature did no good, though. That's why I think it's annoying that you would be lookign for reasons to give as to why it's not there anymore. It didn't hurt anythign at all to have it. It's not like it's some hard to maintain feature. I don't really care about it, butt hen again who knows hhow many members may care about it and what the admin cares about isn't always the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 A point that I don't think I've seen mentioned yet is that features = code. For every feature you have, for every ACP option there is, there's code behind it. That's code that has to be maintained. It has to be checked for conflicts when new features are added to make sure no bugs are introduced. It has to be tested. Eventually you reach the point where it's impossible to keep up with what code where does what and cruft just sits around your codebase bitrotting. It's not possible to keep adding new features without eventually removing some old ones. That way lies madness. I'm still testing and haven't upgraded yet, but I haven't found anything yet that's a showstopper for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Modding Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I did mention how easy it would be to maintain that image option feature and quite a few others though. It's as simple as doing a quick check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewis P Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I did mention how easy it would be to maintain that image option feature and quite a few others though. It's as simple as doing a quick check. Make a hook then. Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.