EMBEDDING OBJECTS

[CountryBoy 0]

If people don't like the idea of posting media, then how about allowing embedded objects in a members signature.

If someone doesn't like it then they can turn off signatures.

[Mags 112]

If people don't like the idea of posting media, then how about allowing embedded objects in a members signature.

If someone doesn't like it then they can turn off signatures.

But what if someone likes to have siggys up, but doesn't want to view embedded media?

[TracyTN 237]

Embedded is server side processing, not client side processing. Loading time is based on user's hardware, not the IP.Board's hardware. Doesn't matter. I thought it was a good idea.

Well it wasn't, so carry on....

Wasn't directed toward me, but it seems rude to make a personal statement toward someone's opinion of a good idea as you did ..

don't like an idea? state why you think it is not a good idea and back it up with factual data, but please refrain from the personal attacks , intimidating others by questioning their intelligence would surely discourage other posters from making suggestions ..

??????

It wasn't a good idea, and that's my opinion. How that turns into a 'personal attack' or 'intimidation' is anyone's guess.

People need to stop being so sensitive!

I learned a long time ago that you can't tell other people how they should or shouldn't feel.

Well, you can tell them, but don't expect it to actually happen.

[CountryBoy 0]

If people don't like the idea of posting media, then how about allowing embedded objects in a members signature.

If someone doesn't like it then they can turn off signatures.

But what if someone likes to have siggys up, but doesn't want to view embedded media?

I don't know, maybe some people like to have siggys up but don't want to view cats .. or animated gif images, or flags, or whatever ..

[Mags 112]

If people don't like the idea of posting media, then how about allowing embedded objects in a members signature.

If someone doesn't like it then they can turn off signatures.

But what if someone likes to have siggys up, but doesn't want to view embedded media?

I don't know, maybe some people like to have siggys up but don't want to view cats ..

Are they insane?

[mawilson 2,133]

If people don't like the idea of posting media, then how about allowing embedded objects in a members signature.

If someone doesn't like it then they can turn off signatures.

But what if someone likes to have siggys up, but doesn't want to view embedded media?

I don't know, maybe some people like to have siggys up but don't want to view cats ..

Are they insane?

[CountryBoy 0]

If people don't like the idea of posting media, then how about allowing embedded objects in a members signature.

If someone doesn't like it then they can turn off signatures.

But what if someone likes to have siggys up, but doesn't want to view embedded media?

I don't know, maybe some people like to have siggys up but don't want to view cats ..

Are they insane?

The way that you said that I assume that you get my point

Some have suggested here that by incorporating the use of embedded media that the file size will slow the page load time (maybe they think it is something like you see on youtube or myspace, I don't know this for sure) but in most instances it will be a file as small as the pictures of your cats and something just as simple as an animated gif. (the flags waving in my signature)

HERE is a fairly large size interactive flash media file (so more than likely it would never be embedded in a signature) and it is only 43 kb in size .. the two cat pictures in your signature are 76 kb combined ..

[Mags 112]

If people don't like the idea of posting media, then how about allowing embedded objects in a members signature.

If someone doesn't like it then they can turn off signatures.

But what if someone likes to have siggys up, but doesn't want to view embedded media?

I don't know, maybe some people like to have siggys up but don't want to view cats ..

Are they insane?

The way that you said that I assume that you get my point

No, I REALLY meant that they must be insane to not like cats or cat pics.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I think Captain Ewok is worried about having to pay higher fees to the web hosting company if embedded is used.

[mawilson 2,133]

I think Captain Ewok is worried about having to pay higher fees to the web hosting company if embedded is used.

Why would he? The objects would still be pulled from other sites, even if embedded.

[no name 1]

I think Captain Ewok is worried about having to pay higher fees to the web hosting company if embedded is used.

Please don't assume why Cap'n does or doesn't want to do it. He already said:

I limit it on purpose for security.

Edited May 9, 2007 by devilette

[CountryBoy 0]

I think Captain Ewok is worried about having to pay higher fees to the web hosting company if embedded is used.

Why would he? The objects would still be pulled from other sites, even if embedded.

Exactly ..

Please don't assume why Cap'n does or doesn't want to do it. He already said:

I limit it on purpose for security.

He limits html functionality .. not related to your assumption that he was referring to embedded objects

[Fandango 1,439]

Embedded is server side processing, not client side processing. Loading time is based on user's hardware, not the IP.Board's hardware. Doesn't matter. I thought it was a good idea.

Well it wasn't, so carry on....

Wasn't directed toward me, but it seems rude to make a personal statement toward someone's opinion of a good idea as you did ..

don't like an idea? state why you think it is not a good idea and back it up with factual data, but please refrain from the personal attacks , intimidating others by questioning their intelligence would surely discourage other posters from making suggestions ..

??????

It wasn't a good idea, and that's my opinion. How that turns into a 'personal attack' or 'intimidation' is anyone's guess.

People need to stop being so sensitive!

I learned a long time ago that you can't tell other people how they should or shouldn't feel.

Well, you can tell them, but don't expect it to actually happen.

Again, just a statement of my opinion...not really expecting anything to happen about it

[Sinergy 3]

I dont really agree with embedding media, some ppl may have hardware that if all the media was there would slow them down. the site is working really fast right now, theres no need to slow other ppl down bc they dont have the fast up to date hardware as some.

same with siggies, if theres alot of media on a thread, man it could take forever to open for some ppl

[CountryBoy 0]

I dont really agree with embedding media, some ppl may have hardware that if all the media was there would slow them down. the site is working really fast right now, theres no need to slow other ppl down bc they dont have the fast up to date hardware as some.

same with siggies, if theres alot of media on a thread, man it could take forever to open for some ppl

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.

Keeping in mind the amount of animated gif and other items (pictures, counters, etc.) that are currently included in members signatures; could you please elaborate as to what hardware (or outdated hardware) would cause the members pages to load slower than they do currently by adding embedded flash objects?

If what you say is true and can be substantiated with factual data then that point should definately be included in this thread.

Thanks

CB

Edited May 9, 2007 by CountryBoy