[img] width limitations.

rubiks6

No more JI - Retired from AO
Apr 2, 2008
836
366
I feel guilty for asking this, because I don't want to cramp anybody's style, but not all of us have 2400 pixel wide (or greater) computer monitors.

Can there be a limitation set for the width of pictures posted with an 'img' tag? It can be annoying when an image is posted that is very wide, causing the entire thread page to widen. I think 800 pixels is reasonable. I personally have a 1280 wide monitor, but I'm trying to consider and accomodate as many members as possible, to make AO pages more readable.

If this can be done, great and thanks. If not, well then, I'll just have to live with the way things are, and I won't worry about it.

(P.S. This request does not refer to thumbnail attached images.)
 

guy

(;Θ_Θ)ゝ”
Feb 11, 2007
2,079
43
If you're using Firefox and have the Greasemonkey script installed, try something like this:
Code:
var z = document.getElementsByTagName('img');
for(i=0;i<z.length;i++) {
if(z[i].width >= 800){
	z[i].width = 800;
	}
}
 

rubiks6

No more JI - Retired from AO
Apr 2, 2008
836
366
I use IE.
 

Sakunyuusha

New Member
Jan 27, 2008
1,855
3
I use IE.
I'm not going to rib you for using IE as opposed to another browser. I'll just say that IE, period, strikes me as unsafe for browsing the porn side of the Internet.

[hide]Internet Explorer is very probably the most widely used web browser on the planet. Stowing fanboy arguments in defense of one browser or another, I'll simply point out that IE's gargantuan userbase originates primarily from the fact that Windows (as a single conglomeration of all its operating systems still in use) is the most widely-used OS in the domicile (meaning "at home") world. Most Windows owners (especially most Windows home owners) either do not know about other web browsers or do know about but do not care to utilize them. My mother and sister, for the longest time, referred to loading Internet Explorer up as "getting on the Internet" and exiting an IE session as "logging off." And while my sister has since learned the truth, and my mother understands that we're never offline except for when we shut down the PC and/or disconnect it from the modem, my mother still refers to opening IE as "getting online" and expresses surprise every time she sees me open Firefox ... even though she must have seen me do it a dozen times already. ^^; My family members are all very intelligent and highly-skilled people, so I know from first-hand experience that if they can confuse a web browser for the WWW that so can billions of other sapient organisms. ;p

Because of this, spammers and malware programmers are more likely to design their code to exploit the way Internet Explorer, specifically, executes its commands vs. coding a more rigorous worm which can infect machines regardless of which browser is used. Time is money, and when 80%-odd of the planet uses IE, why spend 10 hours coding for 99% when you could spend 2 hours apiece coding 5 different bugs for 80% of the planet? Attacking 80% of the planet from five different directions = data r***. Attacking 99% from only one side = asking Norton, Microsoft, et al to come up with a vaccine and thwart you. :p[/hide]

What does this (i.e. all that hidden text) mean? It means that when you visit porn sites with porn ads, like Akiba-Online, you're just as likely to see a worm using IE as you are using Firefox or Opera. But you increase your chances of survival (so to speak) if you use another web browser because statistically there are very few Firefox-specific or Opera-specific viruses and there are many IE-specific bugs which exist alongside the any-browser bugs.

It's got nothing to do with blocking pop-ups. It's got nothing to do with security add-on this or security widget that. I'm simply pointing out that the numbers game doesn't favor your odds of browsing this site safely if you use IE, simply because the assholes who write these viruses and sell them to the even bigger assholes in the porn industry who then purchase them and hide them within their advertisements are intelligent enough and driven enough -- be it by their paycheck, by notoriety, or both -- to overcome any obstacles Microsoft and Mozilla and the others try to throw their way. It's an eternal cat-and-mouse game.
 

rubiks6

No more JI - Retired from AO
Apr 2, 2008
836
366
This wasn't supposed to be a discussion about browsers, but about the size of computer monitors, and how posting full sized pictures using the 'img' tag can make an AO page look messed up if the picture is wider than 800 pixels.
It's not just the monitor size, either. It's also the style sheet used by AO to format a page. Even if your monitor is 2400 pixels wide, a page of a thread is going to look wack if it contains an image that is more than 800 pixels wide in a post.
 

guy

(;Θ_Θ)ゝ”
Feb 11, 2007
2,079
43
Well, it may technically not have been intended as a discussion about browsers, but different browsers do in fact render stylesheets differently, meaning what you see can be different from one browser to another despite using the same monitor/resolution.

I personally do think the forum software should be upgraded to something like IP.Board which has options inline client-side image resizing, which resizes images only if the client's window is smaller than the image. vBulletin probably has similar plugins, but it will just continue to add overhead to the existing server overload problems. For the time being, better to have the forum look weird than not load at all.
 

rubiks6

No more JI - Retired from AO
Apr 2, 2008
836
366
guy said:
... For the time being, better to have the forum look weird than not load at all.
Yes, I agree.

I can live with funky layed out pages much better than with no pages.