I don't expect that inline image support is coming, as that seems quite antithetical to the discussion-focused goal of Tildes. Unfortunately, inline images have been disastrous for both reddit and...
I don't expect that inline image support is coming, as that seems quite antithetical to the discussion-focused goal of Tildes. Unfortunately, inline images have been disastrous for both reddit and Twitter, where they're used almost entirely for "reaction" images, and not substantive content.
Even though Tildes does offer a higher calibre of discussion than other platforms, I fear that offering an easy-to-abuse tool like that would be detrimental to the site's overall quality.
I understand that links may be inconvenient at times, but they seem much preferable to the alternative.
headexploding.gif this.gif pointathead.gif Forums were a more pleasant environment prior to inline images. Predictable layouts, fast loading, and on good days substantive content on a topic you...
headexploding.gif
this.gif
pointathead.gif
Forums were a more pleasant environment prior to inline images. Predictable layouts, fast loading, and on good days substantive content on a topic you were interested in.
The community here is looking for that nostalgia AND the better signal-to-noise ratio for what they're consuming. We want people to participate when they have something to say, not just when they feel the need to engage.
Please no. Going to immediately clutter discussions/be used for memes regardless of intention. I think I'd be ok with a show/hide link to view a linked image inline but really do not want images...
Please no.
Going to immediately clutter discussions/be used for memes regardless of intention. I think I'd be ok with a show/hide link to view a linked image inline but really do not want images displayed inline by default.
The main use case for me is those more technical things where you want to link to some diagram or other relevant image that's hard to explain in text, or when you're sharing some creative thing...
I think I'd be ok with a show/hide link to view a linked image inline but really do not want images displayed inline by default.
The main use case for me is those more technical things where you want to link to some diagram or other relevant image that's hard to explain in text, or when you're sharing some creative thing like in the timasomo showcases.
I'd prefer something like: manually-written block-level <img> tags are allowed only inside manually-written <details> tags. It also doesn't need to solve the image hosting problem, so yet more friction that needs to be overcome before you can share something inline.
This way those carefully crafted showcase messages could still include the thing in an easy-to-read inline way for those readers who are interested in seeing the images inline. But all the friction and hiding them behind collapsible tags should discourage frivolous or memetic uses.
Agree on counts. Shouldn't be open by default - something like the RES expand thing would be really nice to have in my opinion. Definitely no image posts though images in comments would be very...
Agree on counts. Shouldn't be open by default - something like the RES expand thing would be really nice to have in my opinion. Definitely no image posts though images in comments would be very welcome for ~creative threads too
@Deimos' comment on the Tildes Gitlab feature request about adding embedded images and videos: https://gitlab.com/tildes/tildes/-/issues/263 And it's also worth checking out the tildes.official...
@Deimos' comment on the Tildes Gitlab feature request about adding embedded images and videos:
I'm going to close this one. I think at least for the current state of Tildes it's not a good fit, but it might be worth revisiting in the future if we end up with some more visual-oriented communities.
Based on Deimos’ comment there, I wonder if it’s something that could potentially be added, but (and this would be more complex to implement), only enabled in specific communities or specific...
Based on Deimos’ comment there, I wonder if it’s something that could potentially be added, but (and this would be more complex to implement), only enabled in specific communities or specific posts even. (And, as mentioned in other comments, always collapsed by default under a details tag). I think that could significantly limit the spam potential, and still be a useful addition.
I don’t think they’re a “necessary” feature, but I could see situations where it could be useful (such as the pets post).
If it were introduced in a limited capacity, the community I'd see benefitting the most from inline images would be ~creative. After all, most creative endeavors are more visual than text-based,...
If it were introduced in a limited capacity, the community I'd see benefitting the most from inline images would be ~creative. After all, most creative endeavors are more visual than text-based, and sharing images through links isn't quite the same.
Considering that even here on tildes I often enough see people responding to headlines rather than the content they link to it seems very difficult for some.
Considering that even here on tildes I often enough see people responding to headlines rather than the content they link to it seems very difficult for some.
I won't reopen it myself since he's the one that closed it... but that is why I pinged him, so he can see this topic and reopen it himself if he feels different about it now. ;)
Maybe it's worth reopening and seeing how Deimos feels about it these days
I won't reopen it myself since he's the one that closed it... but that is why I pinged him, so he can see this topic and reopen it himself if he feels different about it now. ;)
In addition to the above: there's nothing that stops you from linking to images. People do it with some frequency. Having to click on a link adds some degree of intentionality to the process and...
In addition to the above: there's nothing that stops you from linking to images. People do it with some frequency. Having to click on a link adds some degree of intentionality to the process and helps ensure the layout looks cleaner for everyone.
While I agree, fully, with keeping Tildes free of images, this is really only the case for people who are connecting from a device with a fair sized screen and a mouse. On my phone, for example,...
While I agree, fully, with keeping Tildes free of images, this is really only the case for people who are connecting from a device with a fair sized screen and a mouse. On my phone, for example, if I were to look into a thread that was primarily about images, it would be very annoying to have to click, look, click back, find where I was, scroll, click, look, click back, etc.
Iirc there's a setting that opens all links in separate tabs that might help mitigate this issue! I turned it on when I first joined I think, and it just opens everything in another tab on my...
Iirc there's a setting that opens all links in separate tabs that might help mitigate this issue! I turned it on when I first joined I think, and it just opens everything in another tab on my phone so I can just switch back and forth without scrolling.
That's a great point, but I think that actually has its own problems in terms of usability as well. For example, in the pet thread, one might open a few images of pets, have them open in new tabs,...
That's a great point, but I think that actually has its own problems in terms of usability as well. For example, in the pet thread, one might open a few images of pets, have them open in new tabs, and then have to have the cognitive capacity to remember "tab 1 is the pet belonging to phoenixrises, tab 2 is the pet belonging to JCphoenix, tab3 is for first-must-burn" etc. That's not an outlandish thing to remember, but it is cognitive load that would not be necessary if the images were inline.
In both cases, I think it's more about how usable browsers are on a phone than about how usable Tildes is, but I just think it's worth recognizing that if there were to be a thread that was primarily focused on images, then having them inline would be much more usable than otherwise. I don't think that's a sufficient enough reason to make a change to how images are approached, but I think when deciding on utility and usability issues, it's important to have a full grasp of the problems before deciding on solutions.
I don't engage in the pet thread because even the first step, uploading the pics to an external server, is a pain in the ass. And then linking them. And then not being able to see them. It's the...
I don't engage in the pet thread because even the first step, uploading the pics to an external server, is a pain in the ass. And then linking them. And then not being able to see them. It's the one real downside to that and the cooking threads to me.
I think the solutions is mostly "these types of threads aren't really what Tildes is all about, and that's okay". I understand that people want to have a drop-in reddit replacement that has some...
I think the solutions is mostly "these types of threads aren't really what Tildes is all about, and that's okay". I understand that people want to have a drop-in reddit replacement that has some casual threads as well, but I think that's just not what the site design and philosophy is about. So having the workarounds and options as you've pointed out to make things better for a particular experience is the right solution.
Have you seen the Philosophy section of the Tildes docs? Under Content is this: I interpret that to mean that if shallower content (e.g., images) were allowed, it would quickly reduce the overall...
In-depth content (primarily text-based) is the most important
This includes linking to articles on other sites, posting text topics on Tildes itself, and the comment discussions. In general, any changes to the site that will cause "shallower" content to gain an advantage should be considered very carefully.
I interpret that to mean that if shallower content (e.g., images) were allowed, it would quickly reduce the overall quality of conversation on the site. And I think that's probably accurate.
Even in an extremely limited form (specific communities, hidden by default) I personally would rather this adjustment not be made. This specifically down to my personal preference (so I get not...
Even in an extremely limited form (specific communities, hidden by default) I personally would rather this adjustment not be made. This specifically down to my personal preference (so I get not everyone will agree) in terms of aesthetics and whether it fits with the vibe here, and I just have a personal bias that leans towards more text-forward, efficient content and I like that Tildes bucks typical web trends, since very few sites do anymore.
I would prefer that we be overzealous in protecting against the infiltration of imagery. I think once it is allowed in limited form, it will eventually be requested to open it up more for this or that justification and eventually misused and/or starting to echo the vibe of other sites that Tildes (thankfully) isn't.
I don't find it that bad to expect someone to click a link to an external image instead of inlining it. Browsers and phones tend to handle that well-enough, and that keeps the site clean and only loads external data to someone's computing device if they specifically authorize it (by clicking a link)
I get that there are technical solutions to some issues I have raised but I'd prefer the site not even have the infrastructure to support it at all vs. that
In other words, I don't think the infiltration of imagery is a worthwhile tradeoff to making some comments with image links less annoying for people that don't like clicking them on their phones
Expensive and dangerous to store. Antithetical to the idea of good discussion. No offense, OP, but I think I'd prefer if Tildes never ever ever did this.
Expensive and dangerous to store. Antithetical to the idea of good discussion. No offense, OP, but I think I'd prefer if Tildes never ever ever did this.
The tradeoff by not hosting the images is that they can then be used to track users across the internet just by browsing tildes. I know this is already everywhere else, but I find a quiet comfort...
The tradeoff by not hosting the images is that they can then be used to track users across the internet just by browsing tildes.
I know this is already everywhere else, but I find a quiet comfort in Tildes not being ad-supported and therefore not having built-in trackers for my preferences and habits. I find myself more willing to be honest and not put up a facade because of it, and I know it’s a dumb idea since Tildes is open to view without an account, but I think I would be less willing to discuss challenging topics (and therefore be open to having my mind changed) if there was advertising and tracking built in to Tildes.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't that already the case if you click any links to images? Would inline image previews change the tracking in any way?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't that already the case if you click any links to images? Would inline image previews change the tracking in any way?
The difference is that the way I currently browse tildes very rarely includes links to images or articles, and when I do, it’s an explicit opt-in action I have to take. If images were embedded...
The difference is that the way I currently browse tildes very rarely includes links to images or articles, and when I do, it’s an explicit opt-in action I have to take.
If images were embedded in-line with the text, then I would be necessarily loading those images (and therefore connecting to the image host’s website) just by scrolling past tildes comments, without necessarily choosing to opt in.
I don't expect that inline image support is coming, as that seems quite antithetical to the discussion-focused goal of Tildes. Unfortunately, inline images have been disastrous for both reddit and Twitter, where they're used almost entirely for "reaction" images, and not substantive content.
Even though Tildes does offer a higher calibre of discussion than other platforms, I fear that offering an easy-to-abuse tool like that would be detrimental to the site's overall quality.
I understand that links may be inconvenient at times, but they seem much preferable to the alternative.
headexploding.gif
this.gif
pointathead.gif
Forums were a more pleasant environment prior to inline images. Predictable layouts, fast loading, and on good days substantive content on a topic you were interested in.
The community here is looking for that nostalgia AND the better signal-to-noise ratio for what they're consuming. We want people to participate when they have something to say, not just when they feel the need to engage.
Please no.
Going to immediately clutter discussions/be used for memes regardless of intention. I think I'd be ok with a show/hide link to view a linked image inline but really do not want images displayed inline by default.
The main use case for me is those more technical things where you want to link to some diagram or other relevant image that's hard to explain in text, or when you're sharing some creative thing like in the timasomo showcases.
I'd prefer something like: manually-written block-level
<img>tags are allowed only inside manually-written<details>tags. It also doesn't need to solve the image hosting problem, so yet more friction that needs to be overcome before you can share something inline.Example for reference
This way those carefully crafted showcase messages could still include the thing in an easy-to-read inline way for those readers who are interested in seeing the images inline. But all the friction and hiding them behind collapsible tags should discourage frivolous or memetic uses.
Agree on counts. Shouldn't be open by default - something like the RES expand thing would be really nice to have in my opinion. Definitely no image posts though images in comments would be very welcome for ~creative threads too
@Deimos' comment on the Tildes Gitlab feature request about adding embedded images and videos:
https://gitlab.com/tildes/tildes/-/issues/263
And it's also worth checking out the tildes.official topic from way back in the day related to it as well:
https://tildes.net/~tildes.official/c1/daily_tildes_discussion_allow_in_line_expanding_of_videos_etc
Based on Deimos’ comment there, I wonder if it’s something that could potentially be added, but (and this would be more complex to implement), only enabled in specific communities or specific posts even. (And, as mentioned in other comments, always collapsed by default under a details tag). I think that could significantly limit the spam potential, and still be a useful addition.
I don’t think they’re a “necessary” feature, but I could see situations where it could be useful (such as the pets post).
If it were introduced in a limited capacity, the community I'd see benefitting the most from inline images would be ~creative. After all, most creative endeavors are more visual than text-based, and sharing images through links isn't quite the same.
~engineering might be a place to try it also.
But how hard is it to click into a link really?
Considering that even here on tildes I often enough see people responding to headlines rather than the content they link to it seems very difficult for some.
I won't reopen it myself since he's the one that closed it... but that is why I pinged him, so he can see this topic and reopen it himself if he feels different about it now. ;)
Tildes, thankfully, has not changed in that same direction. Inline images are not a good fit here and extremely unwelcome.
In addition to the above: there's nothing that stops you from linking to images. People do it with some frequency. Having to click on a link adds some degree of intentionality to the process and helps ensure the layout looks cleaner for everyone.
While I agree, fully, with keeping Tildes free of images, this is really only the case for people who are connecting from a device with a fair sized screen and a mouse. On my phone, for example, if I were to look into a thread that was primarily about images, it would be very annoying to have to click, look, click back, find where I was, scroll, click, look, click back, etc.
Iirc there's a setting that opens all links in separate tabs that might help mitigate this issue! I turned it on when I first joined I think, and it just opens everything in another tab on my phone so I can just switch back and forth without scrolling.
That's a great point, but I think that actually has its own problems in terms of usability as well. For example, in the pet thread, one might open a few images of pets, have them open in new tabs, and then have to have the cognitive capacity to remember "tab 1 is the pet belonging to phoenixrises, tab 2 is the pet belonging to JCphoenix, tab3 is for first-must-burn" etc. That's not an outlandish thing to remember, but it is cognitive load that would not be necessary if the images were inline.
In both cases, I think it's more about how usable browsers are on a phone than about how usable Tildes is, but I just think it's worth recognizing that if there were to be a thread that was primarily focused on images, then having them inline would be much more usable than otherwise. I don't think that's a sufficient enough reason to make a change to how images are approached, but I think when deciding on utility and usability issues, it's important to have a full grasp of the problems before deciding on solutions.
I don't engage in the pet thread because even the first step, uploading the pics to an external server, is a pain in the ass. And then linking them. And then not being able to see them. It's the one real downside to that and the cooking threads to me.
That's totally fair! I agree with your assessment, and I definitely don't have any solutions either haha.
I think the solutions is mostly "these types of threads aren't really what Tildes is all about, and that's okay". I understand that people want to have a drop-in reddit replacement that has some casual threads as well, but I think that's just not what the site design and philosophy is about. So having the workarounds and options as you've pointed out to make things better for a particular experience is the right solution.
Have you seen the Philosophy section of the Tildes docs? Under Content is this:
I interpret that to mean that if shallower content (e.g., images) were allowed, it would quickly reduce the overall quality of conversation on the site. And I think that's probably accurate.
I'll still occasionally use emoji though! 🤪
Even in an extremely limited form (specific communities, hidden by default) I personally would rather this adjustment not be made. This specifically down to my personal preference (so I get not everyone will agree) in terms of aesthetics and whether it fits with the vibe here, and I just have a personal bias that leans towards more text-forward, efficient content and I like that Tildes bucks typical web trends, since very few sites do anymore.
I would prefer that we be overzealous in protecting against the infiltration of imagery. I think once it is allowed in limited form, it will eventually be requested to open it up more for this or that justification and eventually misused and/or starting to echo the vibe of other sites that Tildes (thankfully) isn't.
I don't find it that bad to expect someone to click a link to an external image instead of inlining it. Browsers and phones tend to handle that well-enough, and that keeps the site clean and only loads external data to someone's computing device if they specifically authorize it (by clicking a link)
I get that there are technical solutions to some issues I have raised but I'd prefer the site not even have the infrastructure to support it at all vs. that
In other words, I don't think the infiltration of imagery is a worthwhile tradeoff to making some comments with image links less annoying for people that don't like clicking them on their phones
You may already know this, but there's the Hover Zoom+ browser extension that may help. It's not inline, but quicker than opening in a new tab.
Ohh that's super nice! I wonder if something like ibb.co works with it though
It should work with any site that links directly to an image and also many popular ones it supports.
Expensive and dangerous to store. Antithetical to the idea of good discussion. No offense, OP, but I think I'd prefer if Tildes never ever ever did this.
This is a request for inline image support to render images from links which is a bit different.
The tradeoff by not hosting the images is that they can then be used to track users across the internet just by browsing tildes.
I know this is already everywhere else, but I find a quiet comfort in Tildes not being ad-supported and therefore not having built-in trackers for my preferences and habits. I find myself more willing to be honest and not put up a facade because of it, and I know it’s a dumb idea since Tildes is open to view without an account, but I think I would be less willing to discuss challenging topics (and therefore be open to having my mind changed) if there was advertising and tracking built in to Tildes.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't that already the case if you click any links to images? Would inline image previews change the tracking in any way?
The difference is that the way I currently browse tildes very rarely includes links to images or articles, and when I do, it’s an explicit opt-in action I have to take.
If images were embedded in-line with the text, then I would be necessarily loading those images (and therefore connecting to the image host’s website) just by scrolling past tildes comments, without necessarily choosing to opt in.
Ah, I was imagining there'd be a button to click to render the image inline like RES which would probably solve this concern?
This is something that I would see fitting a third party extension for those interested better than as a feature of the website itself.