Image quoting

[pwhodges]

I wrote this in the picture thread:

Incidentally, I feel bound to remark that this new policy about not quoting images in their original img tags is misconceived, and a right pain for no benefit whatsoever (and possibly a disadvantage); every browser made in the past fifteen years caches images so that multiple references to the same image on the same page are not downloaded multiple times - and nor does the rendering engine do any work on them until they are requested to be displayed; however, changing the things to links which open in a new page might make some browsers download a new copy when they are opened, thus causing the users to do more downloading than if a simple quote had been used.

I described it as a new policy without thinking, because hadn't realised that the fix-ups have recently been automated (and not least because some were broken).

I understand the policy of not quoting images if they are not hidden in spoilers (indeed, I have that policy elsewhere); but technically, unless I'm very wrong, in this case there is no benefit, and having the subject of discussion or comment an extra step removed from sight is simply an annoyance. It might be less annoying (a step removed) if the spoiler tags went as well; but that's a bad idea because they commonly contain identifying annotation themselves.

[Mr. Tines]

My preference would be that image quotations appear as thumbnails, the equivalent of reference by salient fragment for text. If all else fails, I feel a Greasemonkey script coming on.

[Xard]

I agree with Tines on the matter with the addition the thumbnail thing should be used only for images above certain size. I don't see much reason for automatically thumbnailing 300x300, for example

[NemZ]

Thumbnail sounds like a fine compromise to me as well if it's not too much trouble to implement.

[pwhodges]

But why? Adding thumbnails into the mix just increases the number of elements on the page and the amount to be downloaded - not to mention the server load generating them. Since quotes of a picture (on the same page) are merely references to the same cached file, what actually is the reason for trying to modify them in the first place?

Note: I do realise that it's not the same if the images are not in spoilers, for the simple reason that the page then gets really irritating to read!

[Xard]

Well, with thumbnails there'd be no real need for spoiler tags I think. Still, personally speaking I was fine with simply spoilering the images but to be fair not everyone remembers to do that and spoilering couple of pages of Moonwalk afterwards is bit of a hassle (cough) so it's not like I can't see the attraction of automated solution

[NemZ]

I find it rather annoying to read either way, honestly*, but the current quote rule applies to images whether spoilered or not, and I assume any fix would as well.

As to page loading issues, I suspect it could be set up so that the thumbnail is still just loading the same cached image, with all processing to resize it accordingly being done on the user's end.

*Quoted spoilers are a bit of an eyesore regardless of what they contain, especially when it's page after page of them at times. This is just one of several issues I have with the way spoilers and quotes get used around here.

[Mr. Tines]

As to page loading issues, I suspect it could be set up so that the thumbnail is still just loading the same cached image, with all processing to resize it accordingly being done on the user's end.

In fact not doing it this way involves way more work all around. What I had in mind was something with effect like this userstyle

[code:1]@-moz-document domain("forum.evageeks.org") {
.quote img { max-width: 200px; max-height: 200px; }
}[/code:1]

No, it's not what you'd do in an ideal world when writing a web service aimed at mobile browsers first and foremost, where bandwidth is at a premium (various A List Apart articles on the mobile web, passim), and compute at the server is being paid for out of the proceeds. But phpBB 2 really isn't built for the mobile/small-screen/touch-first user to start with, and we aren't monetizing the site, so we wouldn't try to put that sort of lipstick on this particular pig.

[pwhodges]

*Quoted spoilers are a bit of an eyesore regardless of what they contain, especially when it's page after page of them at times. This is just one of several issues I have with the way spoilers and quotes get used around here.

Part of that problem is the way that the forum software adds so much blank space round each of the image, quote and spoiler elements; this makes it impossible to generate a compact layout that would be much more acceptable. This is partly a feature of phpBB itself to this day, but made that bit worse because this forum is built on such an old version of it.

[Mr. Tines]

The layout is indeed turn-of-the-century tables inside tables; a quote section is a two-row table, one row for the attribution, one for the quote body. By contrast, the spoiler add-on does it with a one-row/one column table, whose single cell contains a div (attribution), an empty p (space), and another div (content), with margins applied liberally in-line.

Some of this could be fixed by applying overriding styles, but the spoiler mark-up could do to lose a few levels of nesting and all the in-line styling.

[pwhodges]

Hooray for tables! (not). It's bad enough getting it right even with reasonably well-structured nearly pure CSS layout like SMF v2 has, as I well know.

[Ornette]

Thumbnails not so easy. Removing the img tags inside quotes were easy because that happens when you quote, the actual image tag gets generated in the bbcode renderer, which is completely ignorant of layout; tags have no idea what they're embedded in, as the renderer is in the very final part of the post->html processing chain. Best that can be done is probably some intermediary tag that will cause the renderer to add a class that we can stick something in css to limit the max size.

Test:

[Mr. Tines]

Best that can be done is probably some intermediary tag that will cause the renderer to add a class

And we have such a recipe, as the quote element introduces just such a suitable class

[code:1]@-moz-document domain("forum.evageeks.org") {
.quote img { max-width: 200px; max-height: 200px; }
}[/code:1]

[CJD]

Well, with thumbnails there'd be no real need for spoiler tags I think. Still, personally speaking I was fine with simply spoilering the images but to be fair not everyone remembers to do that and spoilering couple of pages of Moonwalk afterwards is bit of a hassle (cough) so it's not like I can't see the attraction of automated solution

Ah, am I reading this right? Images in the Moonwalk thread are supposed to be spoilered (or preferred that way)? If so I wasn't aware of it, mayhaps an edit to the thread title could help? If I recall correctly once the Chit Chat thread title was changed to reflect that policy people caught on relatively quick.

[Xard]

Ah, am I reading this right? Images in the Moonwalk thread are supposed to be spoilered (or preferred that way)? If so I wasn't aware of it, mayhaps an edit to the thread title could help? If I recall correctly once the Chit Chat thread title was changed to reflect that policy people caught on relatively quick.

We're just talking about quoted images, of course not images in general.

[CJD]

Oh ok, just making sure. Carry on then.

[Ornette]

Thumbnails not so easy. Removing the img tags inside quotes were easy because that happens when you quote, the actual image tag gets generated in the bbcode renderer, which is completely ignorant of layout; tags have no idea what they're embedded in, as the renderer is in the very final part of the post->html processing chain. Best that can be done is probably some intermediary tag that will cause the renderer to add a class that we can stick something in css to limit the max size.

Test:

Does everyone see that image as thumbnailed?

[Mr. Tines]

Takes the full age to load, but yes, it's a thumbnail, and I can retire another bit of my site userstyle.

[Ornette]

Takes the full age to load, but yes, it's a thumbnail, and I can retire another bit of my site userstyle.

Original image is a 10Mbyte scan of a pamphlet. I couldn't get your CSS to work, had to use a specific class that essentially did the same thing.

[CJD]

Its not thumbnailed on my end. It's the full size image. Running up to date Chrome if it matters.