AudioFreak has turned off “” auto-loading of external graphics:
[url]http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=513569#post513569[/url]
I feel this is an extreme and unwarranted action that damages my ability to communicate on this forum
Particularly following the move to thumbnail image attachments
During the discussion of the present thumbnail scheme it was frequently pointed out that you could always just use the “[IMG]” external links if you didn’t like the limitation
Now in an unannounced, undebated move that option has been removed
To see the difference, compare:
[url]http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45794[/url]
[url]http://groups.msn.com/jcx/yourwebpage.msnw[/url]
shows the page as I composed it ( probably only temporarily, I’m not trying to start a MSN group, not accepting members or hosting discussions, just using a feature that came with my DSL account to show the in-line images )
some related discussion here:
[url]http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=411710#post411710[/url]
1 Gbyte/day img traffic seems manageable, photobucket seems to have ~10 G/mo limit to their $25/yr premium accounts, just $100/yr would cover 1 Gbyte/day attachment traffic – although they might not be willing to provide that deal to a semi-corporate entity that can pretty much guarantee maxing out the account traffic regularly
lets have some debate on this change, and how various graphics display options affect communication on a technically oriented forum
[url]http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=513569#post513569[/url]
I feel this is an extreme and unwarranted action that damages my ability to communicate on this forum
Particularly following the move to thumbnail image attachments
During the discussion of the present thumbnail scheme it was frequently pointed out that you could always just use the “[IMG]” external links if you didn’t like the limitation
Now in an unannounced, undebated move that option has been removed
To see the difference, compare:
[url]http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45794[/url]
[url]http://groups.msn.com/jcx/yourwebpage.msnw[/url]
shows the page as I composed it ( probably only temporarily, I’m not trying to start a MSN group, not accepting members or hosting discussions, just using a feature that came with my DSL account to show the in-line images )
some related discussion here:
[url]http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=411710#post411710[/url]
1 Gbyte/day img traffic seems manageable, photobucket seems to have ~10 G/mo limit to their $25/yr premium accounts, just $100/yr would cover 1 Gbyte/day attachment traffic – although they might not be willing to provide that deal to a semi-corporate entity that can pretty much guarantee maxing out the account traffic regularly
lets have some debate on this change, and how various graphics display options affect communication on a technically oriented forum
That's my point, it's cheaper the old way, unless there is some other reasoning I am unaware of.
With inline images, the poster is hosting the content themselves. If the only way to get an image in the post is to attach it, doesn't that encourage people to use DIY's bandwidth instead of their own?
With inline images, the poster is hosting the content themselves. If the only way to get an image in the post is to attach it, doesn't that encourage people to use DIY's bandwidth instead of their own?
Are you an attorney, jcx? The "extreme and unwarranted" line sounds like the sort of hyperbole used in lawsuits. Extreme would be not allowing images at all or limiting posts to 200 characters. Changing HOW we see the images hardly sounds extreme. Without discussing it with the hosts, we have no way of knowing if it is warranted or not. SOmetimes there are odd legal things involved, and by leaving images elsewhere liability for infringement is reduced for example.
Stocker said:
I believe inline images are invaluable in technical discussions, they can quickly convey more than the proverbial thousand words – saving the viewers time in understanding the text, deciding to try to understand the text or even in deciding to move on
By having to decipher a html address to decide if it is likely to be a relevant image, web site link or annoying advertising requires reading the surrounding text for its context and deciding to click on the link – seemingly trivial but subtly fatiguing additional mental workload, more like “dogpaddling” than surfing
then you have the annoyance of dealing with multiple windows that need resizing to view and with the tenuous link to the relevant text which becomes difficult to manage with multiple image windows
A issue is AudioFreak deciding to disable a forum function for all of us with a rather trivial complaint as his initial motivation, the DIY member settings already let individual users to control whether links are automatically downloaded
I would be willing to pay (~$25/yr) for a "premium" DIY mebership that allowed my use of inline images
I for one wouldn't pay 
to access *almost* any type of information on the internet. Donations may be solicited, but most members give a lot, just giving their knowledge! If 10% of 30,000 people donate a dollar, you can run a site for a long time. If you require everyone to donate to use a trivial (to me) feature, you will probably not see too many 'gold' members. If you want to p!ss money away go ahead. I have a line on good used computers for $25 per... or I can feed my family but good for a night... To me, money is for things other than information, in this the Information Age.
That said...
Inline images help a little in some discussions. Then again, in some discussions they waste EVERYbody's bandwidth and in yet more discussions they just make the screen a hassle to navigate (ie, 19" picture on 17" monitor).
If you need that many windows open to see what's going on, you need to study a little harder the first one maybe. My original point was that if I had a prayer of understanding the drawing, the text might be enough, or alternatively if I think I am interested enough to decipher a circuit I will take the extra two seconds and click through.
As for deciphering html addresses, if you are just surfing for pictures then I can see it being a slight hassle. If you are actually engaged in or following a discussion, it should be immediately obvious what most links will lead to. If it is too much of a mental "workload"
perhaps you should take a break anyhow...maybe a nap, or have a cool adult beverage.
As far as resizing multiple windows: as seldom as I have to do that with linked images, I much prefer it to having to resize the original window due to the oversized images sometimes inserted by the members.
If you have a premium account that lets you use inline images and not us cheapies, who writes the new code that lets you see an image and me see a link? And as your own use of the word trivial proves, what is trivial to one man is greatly important to another.
/edit: nevermind those who use dialup still... not all by choice, in the backwoods.
/edit: rereading, this sounds a tad harsh. Nothing personal eh?
to access *almost* any type of information on the internet. Donations may be solicited, but most members give a lot, just giving their knowledge! If 10% of 30,000 people donate a dollar, you can run a site for a long time. If you require everyone to donate to use a trivial (to me) feature, you will probably not see too many 'gold' members. If you want to p!ss money away go ahead. I have a line on good used computers for $25 per... or I can feed my family but good for a night... To me, money is for things other than information, in this the Information Age.That said...
Inline images help a little in some discussions. Then again, in some discussions they waste EVERYbody's bandwidth and in yet more discussions they just make the screen a hassle to navigate (ie, 19" picture on 17" monitor).
If you need that many windows open to see what's going on, you need to study a little harder the first one maybe. My original point was that if I had a prayer of understanding the drawing, the text might be enough, or alternatively if I think I am interested enough to decipher a circuit I will take the extra two seconds and click through.
As for deciphering html addresses, if you are just surfing for pictures then I can see it being a slight hassle. If you are actually engaged in or following a discussion, it should be immediately obvious what most links will lead to. If it is too much of a mental "workload"
perhaps you should take a break anyhow...maybe a nap, or have a cool adult beverage.As far as resizing multiple windows: as seldom as I have to do that with linked images, I much prefer it to having to resize the original window due to the oversized images sometimes inserted by the members.
If you have a premium account that lets you use inline images and not us cheapies, who writes the new code that lets you see an image and me see a link? And as your own use of the word trivial proves, what is trivial to one man is greatly important to another.
/edit: nevermind those who use dialup still... not all by choice, in the backwoods.
/edit: rereading, this sounds a tad harsh. Nothing personal eh?
If the major objection to IMG links is some posters usage then DIY could simply announce a IMG style policy and have moderators cajole perceived abusers towards better behavior
Sorry to have wasted so much of your post in an a misapprehension, I didn’t fully express my idea re the small donation
To clarify, I don’t expect any fee for full viewing access would fly, I was floating an idea - that I would be willing to donate in exchange for a premium authoring level that would allow my post’s image links to be hosted by DIY and loaded automatically as a premium perk, much better than some fancy moniker/avatar/tag line
This would still be subject to user control settings
Of course this would reward AudioFreak’s action of turning off a long extant forum feature without discussion on even announcing it, which burned hours of my time “debugging” my IMG links
Sorry to have wasted so much of your post in an a misapprehension, I didn’t fully express my idea re the small donation
To clarify, I don’t expect any fee for full viewing access would fly, I was floating an idea - that I would be willing to donate in exchange for a premium authoring level that would allow my post’s image links to be hosted by DIY and loaded automatically as a premium perk, much better than some fancy moniker/avatar/tag line
This would still be subject to user control settings
Of course this would reward AudioFreak’s action of turning off a long extant forum feature without discussion on even announcing it, which burned hours of my time “debugging” my IMG links
TURN IT BACK ON
'Freak says he's tired of seeing too many damn 2000 pixel wide images... I honestly don't know WHERE the heck those are at, I dwell in the tubes forum and never see anything unwieldy. And can't the mods change to [url] if an image is absurdly stretching the post? Or add returns to the text so the text of the post can be read without scrolling sideways.
On this board it's coded so only that post gets stretched anyway. Not the whole screen of posts like YaBB.
Tim
'Freak says he's tired of seeing too many damn 2000 pixel wide images... I honestly don't know WHERE the heck those are at, I dwell in the tubes forum and never see anything unwieldy. And can't the mods change to [url] if an image is absurdly stretching the post? Or add returns to the text so the text of the post can be read without scrolling sideways.
On this board it's coded so only that post gets stretched anyway. Not the whole screen of posts like YaBB.
Tim
I must agree, this change has made the forum rather useless. If I say "Hi please compare these three current sources I have designed" and post three inline images, you can easily discuss them. But with the present condition of IMG you must open four windows to do the same thing.
Please change it back, else I'm likely to just start posting links back to my own site, where I can make a coherent and useful presentation.
Please change it back, else I'm likely to just start posting links back to my own site, where I can make a coherent and useful presentation.
jwb said:
If you combine your images or
If you link to your site, you can have any number of images arrayed as you please, even configured as a single image. Possibly even with brief commentary on them like some of our Brasilian friends' images
. Back to only one more page. Anyhow, one still has to scroll back and forth between images and text when comparing circuits, yes? Is it easier to alt-tab or scroll?I like the clarified +members' easy image display privelege+ thing better than what I was thinking of. That actually sounds pretty nice.
I think the forum should consider what makes the forum the most valuable resource possible. The IMG is a very important part of the forum's value to its users and the public at large. I think it must remain enabled.
Suppose you had an electronics text book with no pictures. The pictures are in another book, and you have to flip to a certain page to see them. That's what you get when you disable the IMG: the pictures are in some other book.
Please do not disable IMG. If you reduce the learning value of the forum you'll drive away the knowledgable contributors, and you'll make it harder for the newbies to learn from what's already here.
Suppose you had an electronics text book with no pictures. The pictures are in another book, and you have to flip to a certain page to see them. That's what you get when you disable the IMG: the pictures are in some other book.
Please do not disable IMG. If you reduce the learning value of the forum you'll drive away the knowledgable contributors, and you'll make it harder for the newbies to learn from what's already here.
I must be terribly dense sometimes. Can someone please explain what is meant here by "inline images"? To me that means several images in a row. I also do not know how to place more than one single image (which shows up as a clickable thumbnail) in a post while posting on the DIY server, (i.e. not a linked picture to my own server).
As far as images in posts, I think they are very important to keep as they can help immensely in getting a point or idea across with maximum convenience.
As far as images in posts, I think they are very important to keep as they can help immensely in getting a point or idea across with maximum convenience.
jwb said:
Thank you jwb.
If the term "externaly hosted' images had been used instead of "inline" images there would have been no confusion. Why don't people use the right words to describe stuff instead of constantly gravitating towards ambiguous and nebulous inventions?????? Have we forgotten what language was invented for?
Aside from being off-topic, you're overly pedantic. The <IMG> tag in HTML is, in fact, an inline image. See for yourself here. Furthermore "The IMG element embeds an image in the current document at the location of the element's definition. The IMG element has no content; it is usually replaced inline by the image..."
I think everybody else understands what "inline" means here. Perhaps you would prefer to think of it as in-band. In either case, it is whatever is the opposite of an attached image.
I think everybody else understands what "inline" means here. Perhaps you would prefer to think of it as in-band. In either case, it is whatever is the opposite of an attached image.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.