User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 7:11:05 AM EDT
[#1]
Couldn't agree more . . . The new auto picture downsizing really sucks. It makes the site acceptable on my 11" tablet, but makes pictures look ridiculous on my 17" laptop, and renders them practically unusable on my 23" desktop monitors. And forget about pulling the site up on my 42" HTPC unit in the den.
As a "design", "image oriented", person, it simply seems a waste of resources. It's just another example of ARFCOM continuing to knuckle under and pander to one more of an ever expanding list of "protected class", "special snowflake", minority interest groups at the expense of the vast majority of ARFCOM members. [rant] What sort of idiot sits around surfing a site like this on his frigging phone. Phones are for talking. Not browsing. [/rant] What a waste. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 8:14:47 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Couldn't agree more . . . The new auto picture downsizing really sucks. It makes the site acceptable on my 11" tablet, but makes pictures look ridiculous on my 17" laptop, and renders them practically unusable on my 23" desktop monitors. And forget about pulling the site up on my 42" HTPC unit in the den. As a "design", "image oriented", person, it simply seems a waste of resources. It's just another example of ARFCOM continuing to knuckle under and pander to one more of an ever expanding list of "protected class", "special snowflake", minority interest groups at the expense of the vast majority of ARFCOM members. [rant] What sort of idiot sits around surfing a site like this on his frigging phone. Phones are for talking. Not browsing. [/rant] What a waste. If I don't use my phone, how am I supposed to surf ARFCOM while shitting at work? 
Which is what I'm doing right now.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 8:29:41 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agree. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bad update. Please revert. This. Not a fan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 8:32:18 AM EDT
[#4]
I totally agree.
As a temporary relief, any Chrome users can try the extension Imgus. You simply mouse over a picture (or link to a picture) and it will pop up the image in full resolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 8:50:54 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Not liking it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree, it's awful. This. Not liking it. Me either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 8:57:50 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If I don't use my phone, how am I supposed to surf ARFCOM while shitting at work? Which is what I'm doing right now.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Couldn't agree more . . . The new auto picture downsizing really sucks. It makes the site acceptable on my 11" tablet, but makes pictures look ridiculous on my 17" laptop, and renders them practically unusable on my 23" desktop monitors. And forget about pulling the site up on my 42" HTPC unit in the den. As a "design", "image oriented", person, it simply seems a waste of resources. It's just another example of ARFCOM continuing to knuckle under and pander to one more of an ever expanding list of "protected class", "special snowflake", minority interest groups at the expense of the vast majority of ARFCOM members. [rant] What sort of idiot sits around surfing a site like this on his frigging phone. Phones are for talking. Not browsing. [/rant] What a waste. If I don't use my phone, how am I supposed to surf ARFCOM while shitting at work? Which is what I'm doing right now.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 8:59:45 AM EDT
[#7]
asked if there was any doubt, have you ever seen a thread go 3 pages where everyone agrees?
(except that one guy, who is probably a socialist DU'er, on page 2 who likes the new sizing. So we can exclude him from the results) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 9:01:08 AM EDT
[#8]
asked if there was any doubt, have you ever seen a thread go 3 pages where everyone agrees?
(except that one guy, who is probably a socialist DU'er, on page 2 who likes the new sizing. So we can exclude him from the results) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 5:58:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: I thought they were too small before. Now they are terrible. Preach it! brother. GB, please consider the suggestions to make pic sizes user-adjustable. The ultimate would be to have these variable per machine used, IE phone, tablet, notebook or honkin' huge desktop monitor. Thumbnail Zoom Plus makes the current restriction almost tolerable. Hover your mouse over an image to see it larger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 6:12:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Preach it! brother. GB, please consider the suggestions to make pic sizes user-adjustable. The ultimate would be to have these variable per machine used, IE phone, tablet, notebook or honkin' huge desktop monitor. Thumbnail Zoom Plus makes the current restriction almost tolerable. Hover your mouse over an image to see it larger. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I thought they were too small before. Now they are terrible. Preach it! brother. GB, please consider the suggestions to make pic sizes user-adjustable. The ultimate would be to have these variable per machine used, IE phone, tablet, notebook or honkin' huge desktop monitor. Thumbnail Zoom Plus makes the current restriction almost tolerable. Hover your mouse over an image to see it larger.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 6:15:19 PM EDT
[#11]
It feels like we are going back in time. Maybe soon we'll have to dial in to the BBS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 7:38:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for the suggestion. TZP works pretty well, especially in botd. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ... Thumbnail Zoom Plus makes the current restriction almost tolerable. Hover your pointer over an image to see it larger. If you like that one then be sure you have Linkification and Image Zoom installed as well. With those, or a combination of them, you can hover your pointer over a quoted image link and see the pic. I just tested it and saw XCR pop up full-screen at something like 1920x1080. It makes it really handy to see what people are commenting about, without having to go back and find the pic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 7:51:06 PM EDT
[#13]
+1 for not liking tiny photos.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 8:14:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It feels like we are going back in time. Maybe soon we'll have to dial in the the BBS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 8:22:49 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The previous 800 pixel width limit was right on the ragged edge of readable for tables, graphs, slides, and so forth. The new 500 pixel limit is terrible. I feel like swinging a cactus. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 12:53:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Do not like small pix.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 1:01:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Just takes 1 email to let me know and I can adjust it. Don't get too bothered, it's a simple fix.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 1:12:35 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just takes 1 email to let me know and I can adjust it. Don't get too bothered, it's a simple fix. Is that a site-wide fix, or a browser fix, or a user ID type fix? Sort of edit a cookie or something, or an .ini edit? I use several different computers during the week, - a user ID type config switch would be teh titz. Then I could have different ID's for different pic sizes .  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 1:44:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just takes 1 email to let me know and I can adjust it. Don't get too bothered, it's a simple fix. Lets riot!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 1:59:21 PM EDT
[#20]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 2:42:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Absolutely sucks balls. Now they're like thumbnails on steroids.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 3:18:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i was helpfully linked here from my rant in GD: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1746301_image_resizing__downsizing__on_ARFCOM_sucks__you_can_t_even_see_the_nipples_i_posted___.html i agree with the OP in this thread, the new image (re)size is retarded. ARFCOM is not all about mobile phone users with 3" screens, fellas! ar-jedi The new picture sizes suck on my Galaxy too; not really seeing any advantage on there either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 3:23:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Absolutely sucks balls. Now they're like thumbnails on steroids. Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 4:14:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Thank you! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 4:19:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely sucks balls. Now they're like thumbnails on steroids. Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.) Sounds great! Thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 4:21:32 PM EDT
[#26]
I'm going to swap the base lightbox for something which allows larger images to load. Should make it a little nicer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 4:25:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
I thought they were too small before. Now they are terrible.Does GB read ARF on a 15" CRT?There are so many great photography threads on ARF. Typically gun or aviation, BOTD. Here is what they look like on my not all that large 24" monitor... http://i.imgur.com/vGvamuH.png Why not give us a user setting so that we can disable this? Or, barring that, a lesser improvement would be to make them into links to the original full sized image. I just use Command-Plus ... it enlarges both text and images. Not sure if the windows version does the same though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 4:42:06 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going to swap the base lightbox for something which allows larger images to load. Should make it a little nicer. Looks good! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 5:15:55 PM EDT
[#29]
#3 is a nice add. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 5:18:41 PM EDT
[#30]
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 5:20:41 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Absolutely sucks balls. Now they're like thumbnails on steroids. Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.)  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 5:51:09 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Absolutely sucks balls. Now they're like thumbnails on steroids. Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.) You rock !!! What a great improvement. It all seems to work very well. Many Thanks.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 8:21:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm going to swap the base lightbox for something which allows larger images to load. Should make it a little nicer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 8:31:35 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely sucks balls. Now they're like thumbnails on steroids. Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.) Responsiveness to a complaint???? That's not what we wanted! Now what the fuck are going to bitch about???? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 8:58:24 PM EDT
[#35]
I think your new image changes are breaking some images. For example, my archived thread...
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_10_22/674829_Shack_Build.html Its rewrote the image URLS to use HTTPS when they were originally HTTP. Unfortunately, you can't visit my image hosting site using SSL (the server only serves an SSL cert for another subdomain and its a self signed cert). See for instance this one... I'm setting the URL for the image to: http://nullbits.foxxz.net/albums/gus/IMG_2550.sized.jpg But the image code rewrites it to HTTPS and breaks it 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 9:38:10 PM EDT
[#36]
GB, whatever you did broke ALL the picture links. i think the problem is as described above. ar-jedi |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 12:17:50 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think your new image changes are breaking some images. For example, my archived thread... https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_10_22/674829_Shack_Build.html Its rewrote the image URLS to use HTTPS when they were originally HTTP. Unfortunately, you can't visit my image hosting site using SSL (the server only serves an SSL cert for another subdomain and its a self signed cert). See for instance this one... I'm setting the URL for the image to: http://nullbits.foxxz.net/albums/gus/IMG_2550.sized.jpg But the image code rewrites it to HTTPS and breaks it http://nullbits.foxxz.net/albums/gus/IMG_2550.sized.jpg The urls will be linked based on your connection type. This is part of upcoming SSL security lock down. So if you are using the website via HTTPS, then it will link the images in via SSL to ensure security. If you are using the site via HTTP, then it will use HTTP to pull images and videos from other sites. If you switch to HTTP, those images will load fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 6:07:27 AM EDT
[#38]
Thank you.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 6:48:00 AM EDT
[#39]
You know I don't understand all this nerd speak,
so maybe it's supposed to work like this. When I clicked the first image on this thread it opened up the high five image, and then when I clicked it again the horse image from further down the thread showed up. Will clicking the box show every image on that page? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 9:34:02 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know I don't understand all this nerd speak, so maybe it's supposed to work like this. When I clicked the first image on this thread it opened up the high five image, and then when I clicked it again the horse image from further down the thread showed up. Will clicking the box show every image on that page? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 9:46:10 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely sucks balls. Now they're like thumbnails on steroids. Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.) The only problem with this GB, is that you can no longer use an image as a clickable link to an external URL. If you click on the image, you just get another view of the same image and not the URL that the link was supposed to take you to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 11:01:22 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The urls will be linked based on your connection type. This is part of upcoming SSL security lock down. So if you are using the website via HTTPS, then it will link the images in via SSL to ensure security. If you are using the site via HTTP, then it will use HTTP to pull images and videos from other sites. If you switch to HTTP, those images will load fine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think your new image changes are breaking some images. For example, my archived thread... https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_10_22/674829_Shack_Build.html Its rewrote the image URLS to use HTTPS when they were originally HTTP. Unfortunately, you can't visit my image hosting site using SSL (the server only serves an SSL cert for another subdomain and its a self signed cert). See for instance this one... I'm setting the URL for the image to: http://nullbits.foxxz.net/albums/gus/IMG_2550.sized.jpg But the image code rewrites it to HTTPS and breaks it http://nullbits.foxxz.net/albums/gus/IMG_2550.sized.jpg The urls will be linked based on your connection type. This is part of upcoming SSL security lock down. So if you are using the website via HTTPS, then it will link the images in via SSL to ensure security. If you are using the site via HTTP, then it will use HTTP to pull images and videos from other sites. If you switch to HTTP, those images will load fine. 
From the technical side of things, I understand your viewpoint. But its breaking more image hosting sites than just the one I use. Similarly, does linking to an HTTPS site get rewrote to HTTP on the non-SSL site? What if the hosting site ONLY supports HTTPS? If the images are going to be broken let the browser break them because it refuses to load up HTTP elements on an HTTPS page. At least then people can make the choice whether or not they want to allow the security risk. Rewriting links to sites that have unknown behavior is poor form. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 11:20:59 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: yes. lightbox adds every image on the page into one gallery that you can click/arrow through Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You know I don't understand all this nerd speak, so maybe it's supposed to work like this. When I clicked the first image on this thread it opened up the high five image, and then when I clicked it again the horse image from further down the thread showed up. Will clicking the box show every image on that page? Hmmm, I wonder how images hidden in spoiler boxes will be handled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 11:53:39 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the technical side of things, I understand your viewpoint. But its breaking more image hosting sites than just the one I use. Similarly, does linking to an HTTPS site get rewrote to HTTP on the non-SSL site? What if the hosting site ONLY supports HTTPS? If the images are going to be broken let the browser break them because it refuses to load up HTTP elements on an HTTPS page. At least then people can make the choice whether or not they want to allow the security risk. Rewriting links to sites that have unknown behavior is poor form. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think your new image changes are breaking some images. For example, my archived thread... https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_10_22/674829_Shack_Build.html Its rewrote the image URLS to use HTTPS when they were originally HTTP. Unfortunately, you can't visit my image hosting site using SSL (the server only serves an SSL cert for another subdomain and its a self signed cert). See for instance this one... I'm setting the URL for the image to: http://nullbits.foxxz.net/albums/gus/IMG_2550.sized.jpg But the image code rewrites it to HTTPS and breaks it http://nullbits.foxxz.net/albums/gus/IMG_2550.sized.jpg The urls will be linked based on your connection type. This is part of upcoming SSL security lock down. So if you are using the website via HTTPS, then it will link the images in via SSL to ensure security. If you are using the site via HTTP, then it will use HTTP to pull images and videos from other sites. If you switch to HTTP, those images will load fine.
From the technical side of things, I understand your viewpoint. But its breaking more image hosting sites than just the one I use. Similarly, does linking to an HTTPS site get rewrote to HTTP on the non-SSL site? What if the hosting site ONLY supports HTTPS? If the images are going to be broken let the browser break them because it refuses to load up HTTP elements on an HTTPS page. At least then people can make the choice whether or not they want to allow the security risk. Rewriting links to sites that have unknown behavior is poor form. The point of SSL is to secure your experience. If we allow mixed mode content, the security is gone. This is why the browser is setting your elements. (I do not set HTTP/HTTPS anymore on our end, it's not decided by the way you are using the website.) Loading unsecured images when you are trying to be secure creates issues with that secure connection. Right now, with images and videos, the way you are browsing controls the content your browser allows in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 11:55:33 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmmm, I wonder how images hidden in spoiler boxes will be handled. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know I don't understand all this nerd speak, so maybe it's supposed to work like this. When I clicked the first image on this thread it opened up the high five image, and then when I clicked it again the horse image from further down the thread showed up.
Will clicking the box show every image on that page? Hmmm, I wonder how images hidden in spoiler boxes will be handled. I can alter these to not show in the album. I can set it so only the image you click opens. I can set it so the collection is only images from that specific post, or that user, etc. This made sense because it helps image hounds go through images in one shot if they want or they can not hit next/prev. It's in your control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 11:58:03 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only problem with this GB, is that you can no longer use an image as a clickable link to an external URL. If you click on the image, you just get another view of the same image and not the URL that the link was supposed to take you to. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely sucks balls. Now they're like thumbnails on steroids. Mmm thumbnails and 'roids. Ok so I have given this my attention and here's what I've got. (Will update the site shortly.) 1 - Max width limited to 1024px in the post. 2 - Lightbox plugged in and images click-able. Click the image, opens up light box with the image inside. Lightbox limits based on your resolution. 3 - All images on the page added to the Lightbox instance as a gallery. (So you can scroll through all the images on the page if you wish.) The only problem with this GB, is that you can no longer use an image as a clickable link to an external URL. If you click on the image, you just get another view of the same image and not the URL that the link was supposed to take you to. Hmm. I can look at a work around for this since I do this once in a while. The option of course is to not make the image click to a location, but to add the link below or above the image. This might be a better solution as it keeps "hidden" links in images more visible. I think both options have pros and cons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 12:42:42 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The point of SSL is to secure your experience. If we allow mixed mode content, the security is gone. This is why the browser is setting your elements. (I do not set HTTP/HTTPS anymore on our end, it's not decided by the way you are using the website.) Loading unsecured images when you are trying to be secure creates issues with that secure connection. Right now, with images and videos, the way you are browsing controls the content your browser allows in. What about sites that disallow HTTP and only accept HTTPS content? There is no security risk linking to HTTPS content from an HTTP site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 1:00:13 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hmm. I can look at a work around for this since I do this once in a while. The option of course is to not make the image click to a location, but to add the link below or above the image. This might be a better solution as it keeps "hidden" links in images more visible. I think both options have pros and cons.  image (as a link) to the top left corner of all images greater than 100 pixels? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 2:16:38 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about sites that disallow HTTP and only accept HTTPS content? There is no security risk linking to HTTPS content from an HTTP site. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The point of SSL is to secure your experience. If we allow mixed mode content, the security is gone. This is why the browser is setting your elements. (I do not set HTTP/HTTPS anymore on our end, it's not decided by the way you are using the website.) Loading unsecured images when you are trying to be secure creates issues with that secure connection. Right now, with images and videos, the way you are browsing controls the content your browser allows in. What about sites that disallow HTTP and only accept HTTPS content? There is no security risk linking to HTTPS content from an HTTP site. Very true. I can always put a fix for this. The biggest issue is do we make SSL as secure as possible for those who want to use it or do we just not care about security and allow mix mode content. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 3:47:08 PM EDT
[#50]
On an iPad and 80% of the images are broken.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
