As long as someone appears to be currently 'tinkering' in this area, how about adding a 'Pending Approval' Flag on posts where a string longer than xx (80?) characters WITHOUT SPACES exists?
Some folks are limited to 1024x768 (or less!) displays for FINANCIAL reasons, while others, with displays capable of higher resolutions, must stick to the lower resolutions for VISION problems. When someone posts a 'Super Long String', FuseTalk converts the ENTIRE SCREEN of that THREAD (20-50 posts per screen, depending on the User's Profile) to a SUPER WIDE WIDTH requiring the 1024x768 (or less!) display user to constantly horizontally scroll back-and-forth for EACH line of EACH post.
Even more 'User Friendly' would be a script that didn't allow 'RAW' LINKs at all and automatically converted them to FuseTalk 'TAGGED' LINKs with the generic title 'Auto-Linkified'.
Thanks!
How wide is the current post window (on my 1024x768 laptop display)?
I'm not sure if the technology exists to count characters and compare them to a value and then make a decision based on the results.
It's a good idea, though. I think we've attempted to tackle the issue of super-huge strings before.
Ideally, us moderator types should be editing those larger URLs so they don't make your screen go crazy. Obviously we can't catch them all, so it would be nice to see some sort of "auto-shrinking-urls-and-stuff" feature. Again, I don't even know if this is possible.
DevilMonkey said: I'm not sure if the technology exists to count characters and compare them to a value and then make a decision based on the results.
It's a good idea, though. I think we've attempted to tackle the issue of super-huge strings before.
Ideally, us moderator types should be editing those larger URLs so they don't make your screen go crazy. Obviously we can't catch them all, so it would be nice to see some sort of "auto-shrinking-urls-and-stuff" feature. Again, I don't even know if this is possible.As a programmer since the early 80s, IIRC, the ability to count characters has existed since the days of 'Tiny Basic' on my RCA COSMAC1802 (or at least MBasic under CP/M with my Z-80). If I had more energy left in my 'old, tired bones', I'd look around in my semi-old Java/JavaScript books.
So, if, as a '1024x768 LCD display user', I come across a SUPER-HUGE string that 'messes up' my display (and thus my FatWallet reading pleasure), it's totally acceptable that I CLICK on 'Alert Moderator' and POLITELY ask for it to 'fixed' / LINKIFIED?
TakeTheActive said: As a programmer since the early 80s, IIRC, the ability to count characters has existed since the days of 'Tiny Basic' on my RCA COSMAC1802 (or at least MBasic under CP/M with my Z-80).I'll take your word for it. There must be some reason we haven't done it yet. If linking it would not always be appropriate (see your "screen width tester" string above) then maybe we'd try to make sure lines wrapped at a certain length by default. Although then you've got to worry about people with six cinema displays hooked up to one machine who like to stretch the browser to a width of five thousand pixels or whatever.
It's always a tough choice between coding for something which comes up very infrequently, and reducing functionality for theoretical computer setups which probably don't even exist.
TakeTheActive said: So, if, as a '1024x768 LCD display user', I come across a SUPER-HUGE string that 'messes up' my display (and thus my FatWallet reading pleasure), it's totally acceptable that I CLICK on 'Alert Moderator' and POLITELY ask for it to 'fixed' / LINKIFIED? Yes, absolutely! If it's something we can shrink down to a more manageable size, or make it easier to navigate by providing links, we'll set it up for you.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
