testing link to post

[Gusoyama 104]

Post

Another post

Yet another

Still another

Yup. If you click on the links, it drops you where it SHOULD be before the photos load. I knew the photos changed things up, but couldn't remember if this was the case when you went direct to a post. This makes a direct post-linked index of photos impossible. Oh well.

[kaiguma 0]

Post

Another post

Yet another

Still another

Yup. If you click on the links, it drops you where it SHOULD be before the photos load. I knew the photos changed things up, but couldn't remember if this was the case when you went direct to a post. This makes a direct post-linked index of photos impossible. Oh well.

I've noticed some websites seem to employ code which first reads the output size of each image, then blocks them all out (empty) and then loads the rest of the page around the empty blocks. The photos then load in whatever order they would naturally, but without the page jumping all over the place while they come in.

Any way to implement this method on the forum? I'm pretty green when it comes to web design and programming so maybe I am way off here...

edit: if anything could possibly entice Exil to post, this is probably the topic :-)

Edited April 17, 2008 by kaiguma

[Asashosakari 19,682]

I've noticed some websites seem to employ code which first reads the output size of each image, then blocks them all out (empty) and then loads the rest of the page around the empty blocks. The photos then load in whatever order they would naturally, but without the page jumping all over the place while they come in.

That doesn't require any special code, it's part of standard HTML/CSS. Something like:

<img src="http://someimage.jpg" height="000" width="000">
<img src="http://someimage.jpg" style="height: 000px; width: 000px; ">

Example with a deliberately wrong avatar image location:

That should show up as a broken image sized 128x192.

Any way to implement this method on the forum?

Exil will obviously know better, but I suspect there's no easy way to get the forum software to add those additional tags, unless the pictures are hosted on sumoforum.net itself so that their attributes could be stored along with the pics and the proper values inserted into the HTML code. (For all I know that might already be happening.)

Alternatively, posters would have to do proper HTML links themselves instead of using the [ img ] BBcode tags, but that's probably a bit much to ask.

Edit: Whoah...when I try to reply to this post, my image HTML link above gets automatically converted to BBcode, and the height/width attributes are dumped. In other words, any post quoting a properly formatted image will make the page jump again. D'oh.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Asashosakari

[Exil 301]

How did I miss this? (Holiday feeling...) I better subscribe to this subforum, this is where all the action is. :-D

Now, while Asashosakari above is correct (except in not knowing that Firefox collapses broken images automatically -- but then, his handIEcap is well known :-P), I would like to add that the forum script doesn't read image headers for inline images, and thus cannot use fixed dimensions. Furthermore, our ISP has recently disabled remote file access for PHP scripts, which means that even if the script did read the headers, it wouldn't work for us. This is also why you've been seeing incorrectly sizes avatars.

edit: if anything could possibly entice Exil to post, this is probably the topic :-P

Enticing an administrator must surely be an offense of some sort. :-O

[Asashosakari 19,682]

(except in not knowing that Firefox collapses broken images automatically)

Like I needed another reason to hate Firefox. (Holiday feeling...)

Seriously though, I've actually started to use it a bit more of late, mostly prompted by having to test the new Seki-Toto pages for cross-browser compatibility. Let me just say that Firefox's insistence on being 100% standards-compliant even when the specifications are patently dumb is just as infuriating as IE's b0rkenness. Trying to get those damned flags (e.g. here) properly centered vertically for all potential font sizes was a pain, and in fact in order to accomodate F'ing FF it now looks worse in IE, too. In other words, now it's semi-ugly in both browsers instead of correct in one and ugly in the other. Grrr.

(While IE does the common-sense thing [at least in version 6] and actually centers images at the vertical mid-point of the surrounding text when you use vertical-align:center, FF insists on using some braindead W3C-approved method for calculating how to place the image relative to the text which doesn't allow for, you know, actual centering [whether with vertical-align:center or any other keyword] and thus makes any workaround break down as soon as you're trying to combine fixed-size images with variably-sized text. I thought accessibility was the primary goal of making web pages? That stupid "feature" almost required me to forcibly fix the font size for those pages. I was this close to slapping a "This website best viewed with Internet Explorer" button on it out of spite, and I hated those things back when people were actually still using them. /rant)

Edited May 9, 2008 by Asashosakari

[Exil 301]

Seriously though, I've actually started to use it a bit more of late, mostly prompted by having to test the new Seki-Toto pages for cross-browser compatibility. Let me just say that Firefox's insistence on being 100% standards-compliant even when the specifications are patently dumb is just as infuriating as IE's b0rkenness. Trying to get those damned flags (e.g. here) properly centered vertically for all potential font sizes was a pain, and in fact in order to accomodate F'ing FF it now looks worse in IE, too.

Oh, I'm with you on the vertical-alignment. The hardest thing to get right while trying to replicate the IP.Board style? An arrow.

You shouldn't expect exact raster graphics from HTML (with or without CSS), and the vertical dimension is where things tend to get hairy. And of course you shouldn't do web design on IE6 to begin with. You'll just break things in every other browser. (Shaking head...)

In other words, now it's semi-ugly in both browsers instead of correct in one and ugly in the other. Grrr.

I'll play the devil's advocate and point out that there is no such thing as "both browsers". There's IE6, IE7, Firefox (and other Gecko-based browsers), Safari (and other KTHML-based browsers) and Opera (not to mention the text-based browsers). You previewed those pages in Safari, didn't you? (Holiday feeling...)

[Asashosakari 19,682]

In other words, now it's semi-ugly in both browsers instead of correct in one and ugly in the other. Grrr.

I'll play the devil's advocate and point out that there is no such thing as "both browsers". There's IE6, IE7, Firefox (and other Gecko-based browsers), Safari (and other KTHML-based browsers) and Opera (not to mention the text-based browsers). You previewed those pages in Safari, didn't you? ;-)

Well, sure, "both browsers" as in "the two I mentioned in the preceding sentence". :-P Anyway, in a number of other places I frequent (blogs using various engines, etc.), whenever there's a complaint about a page being horribly broken by something that seems to look and work fine for everybody else, there's a 90% probability that that person is using Safari. So, no, I'm not particularly concerned with breaking something for Safari users. :-) Haven't checked with IE7 since it's too bulky for my tastes and I'm sticking with IE6 for now, but I figure if it looks okay in both IE6 and FF, there's little chance that IE7 has screwed it up.