# The Smiles & "IMG" in User CP is off!



## The Conch Man (Jun 10, 2005)

*Why are these two features turned-off when editing your "Sig" in your User CP? Just askin, don't want to get into any trouble.*


----------



## Makai Guy (Jun 10, 2005)

To keep people from loading up their signatures with images.  These not only take up much repetitive space on the screen, they increase the amount of time it takes to download a page significantly.  This may not be a big deal to those with fast connections, but those with slow ones (like TUGgers on vacation connecting via laptops with modems) it is a real drag.

The biggest problem is with IMG links to files hosted elsewhere.  If that server is having problems it can really bog things down.


----------



## The Conch Man (Jun 11, 2005)

Thanks again Doug!


----------



## Fern Modena (Jun 11, 2005)

Doug,
Some of the BBS that I frequent allow both avatars and graphic signatures.  They have limits on size, and host them on the website of the BBS.  That takes care of the load-lag issue.

Its my opinion (and I've got the exact opposite viewpoint) that you're allowing your personal views to cloud this issue.  I connect via modem on vacation and have no problems.  I think if you do a poll, you'll find that the most common connection to TUG is broadband.  I'd guess among the regular users broadband is as high as 90%.  If course I could be wrong, but if we don't do a poll, we'll never know.

TUG uses graphics to begin with...In the beginning we had at least one  member who used Lynx for (non-graphic) connecting, and had to go to the library to read TUG.  So since you're not going to accommodate him, where do you draw the line?  The small graphics of avatars and signatures enhance the "feel" of the BBS for many people.

This is JMHO, of course, but many feel the way I do, or the issue wouldn't keep coming up.


----------



## Keitht (Jun 11, 2005)

Personally I come on the board to get, or provide, information.  I don't see how fancy signatures or other graphics add anything.  Even if the presence of such addons only impact on a minority of users shouldn't we still consider them?


----------



## JeffV (Jun 11, 2005)

I agree with Keith.  I find the pictures and elaborate signatures distracting and annoying. Let's keep it simple.


----------



## Dave M (Jun 11, 2005)

Fern -

I'm guessing that you are correct - that a high percentage of users come here with a high-speed connection. However, we want the information here to be readily available to everyone, not just that high percentage.

I'm currently away from home and am connecting through a dial-up. Where simplicity exists, it makes my current connection more enjoyable.


----------



## pittle (Jun 11, 2005)

I agree with Keitht & JefV.  Just keep it simple.  The format of the new BB is great.


----------



## Fern Modena (Jun 11, 2005)

You know, in the "User's CP," here you can "turn off" images, avatars, and signatures, so I really don't see why its an issue with Doug...and I think those of you who are against this also don't realize that it wouldn't have to affect you if you don't want it to.

But it appears that the majority, however misinformed, or the vocal minority, whichever it is, will pervail.  Its not enough to make me give up TUG.

Fern


----------



## Carl D (Jun 11, 2005)

Fern Modena said:
			
		

> You know, in the "User's CP," here you can "turn off" images, avatars, and signatures, so I really don't see why its an issue with Doug...and I think those of you who are against this also don't realize that it wouldn't have to affect you if you don't want it to.
> 
> But it appears that the majority, however misinformed, or the vocal minority, whichever it is, will pervail.  Its not enough to make me give up TUG.
> 
> Fern


Not that my opinion counts, but I agree with you. 
Nice signatures and avatars make the boads much nicer, and less "sterile".

As you correctly point out, you can turn them off if you choose.


----------



## bigfrank (Jun 11, 2005)

I agree with Fern 100%, I also agree that you can use the poll feature of this board to see what the members want. From what I had read, Doug said that he would be adding the avatar feature at a later time. I do not see why not just do it now. Most members here already know how to use an Avatar and the people who don't can learn by asking questions on the board.


----------



## JeffV (Jun 11, 2005)

This was a feature that I was not aware of, and as a result, I retract my statement. As long as I can keep those little "cuties" from showing up, I have no objection to someone else using them. Thanks for pointing this out Fern, this is the my first experience with this format. 


			
				Fern Modena said:
			
		

> You know, in the "User's CP," here you can "turn off" images, avatars, and signatures, so I really don't see why its an issue with Doug...and I think those of you who are against this also don't realize that it wouldn't have to affect you if you don't want it to.
> 
> But it appears that the majority, however misinformed, or the vocal minority, whichever it is, will pervail.  Its not enough to make me give up TUG.
> 
> Fern


----------



## The Conch Man (Jun 13, 2005)

*Well, I see a few of us agree with this feature, why not give it a try & lets see what happens! You even had some turn-arounds on this issue so why not give it a chance.*


----------



## geoand (Jun 13, 2005)

[_Deleted message which violated Rule #5 - "Be Courteous" for use of this site._ Dave M, BBS Volunteer]


----------



## bigfrank (Jun 13, 2005)

Geo If you look at both my post and Ferns post you will see that we both said to use the poll feature of this board to see what tug members want. It's not what I want it's what the majority of it's members want. I do not understand why you would take offense to it but if thats your feeling so be it, I am not going to debate it.

Have a nice day


----------



## Fern Modena (Jun 13, 2005)

Wow, Geo, "kill the messenger," huh?  What about the rule about personal attacks?  Did I do something to you that I don'r remember?  I thought we were having a constructive discussion.  But I'm not going to debate you...

Fern

[_Edited to delete quote of another's personal attack._ Dave M, BBS Volunteer]


----------



## Cotswolder (Jun 13, 2005)

Just to add my two penneth. I am not mithered either way. If avatars are available I will probaly use them. If not then it is no matter


----------



## Carl D (Jun 13, 2005)

I'm not sure what the big deal is. If someone on the BBS doesn't like avatars, or has a slow connection, just turn them off. This is easily done by going into your user cp, edit options, and un-ckecking the box.


----------



## lanalee (Jun 13, 2005)

[_Deleted message which quoted an earlier message which I deleted because it violated the rules for use of this site._ Dave M, BBS Volunteer]


----------



## Dave M (Jun 13, 2005)

Making accusations of any kind to or about an individual in a public post on the BBS is a violation of TUG posting rules. Thus, I have edited two messages. However, I have left the original accusation intact, because I believe it is pertinent to my comments which follow. 

Have patience. As TTom has so eloquently stated in another thread, “Doug has been working his butt off ever since this board opened, fielding an increasing number of repetitive questions.” 

Although most users were very comfortable with access to the old BBS, many users seem to have developed brain-lock when trying to register here or use some of the new features. Doug has been single-handedly resolving most of the (literally) hundreds of “I need help” messages to ensure that the software as currently configured is workable for all. He has been diligently pursuing minor glitches that many are aware of, such as the “Guest” versus “TUG Member” display issue and the web server host problem that locked many users out of this BBS late last week. In addition, he is dealing with a number of other small issues that don’t have the public prominence as the two I mentioned.

That’s a long way of stating that Doug has his hands full, and it shouldn’t take a genius to figure that out. So rather than accusing Doug of allowing his “personal views to cloud this issue”, how about granting him a little slack and accepting that there are currently other priorities? Anyone else care to volunteer hundreds of hours that Doug has/is putting into this?

Yes, it’s easy for a user to turn off some features that don’t work well for that user, especially if the user has figured out how to do it. However, if you could see the nature of many of the messages Doug has been getting, you would understand that today is not the right time to turn on more complexity that will generate another raft of messages that start, “I’m having a problem with….”

There will be plenty of time to tweak the software so that we get as close to an ideal set-up as possible. This isn’t the time.


----------



## Carl D (Jun 13, 2005)

Dave M said:
			
		

> Yes, it’s easy for a user to turn off some features that don’t work well for that user, especially if the user has figured out how to do it. However, if you could see the nature of many of the messages Doug has been getting, you would understand that today is not the right time to turn on more complexity that will generate another raft of messages that start, “I’m having a problem with….”
> 
> There will be plenty of time to tweak the software so that we get as close to an ideal set-up as possible. This isn’t the time.


Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to explain the thought process.


----------



## geoand (Jun 13, 2005)

bigfrank said:
			
		

> Geo If you look at both my post and Ferns post you will see that we both said to use the poll feature of this board to see what tug members want. It's not what I want it's what the majority of it's members want. I do not understand why you would take offense to it but if thats your feeling so be it, I am not going to debate it.
> 
> Have a nice day



I don't know what else I said but apparently there was more.  I apologize to each of you for being discourteous.

You and others have made more than 1 post on this subject on this board on separate threads.  It has been mentioned more than once that eventually it will be enabled.  It has been mentioned at least once that enabling this feature will likely increase the burden on the guys trying to fix the board.

If you are not going to debate it, how come you have asked for it in one way or another more than once on this board?  It appears that you are being disingenuous when you say that it is not what you want but what the majority of the members want.

Again, I apologize for the lack of courtesy.


----------



## bigfrank (Jun 13, 2005)

geoand said:
			
		

> I don't know what else I said but apparently there was more.  I apologize to each of you for being discourteous.
> 
> You and others have made more than 1 post on this subject on this board on separate threads.  It has been mentioned more than once that eventually it will be enabled.  It has been mentioned at least once that enabling this feature will likely increase the burden on the guys trying to fix the board.
> 
> ...



When I said I did not want to debate it I ment To bebate it with you because of your post. It's over Apology is accepted lets move on.


----------



## The Conch Man (Jun 14, 2005)

Carl D said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm not sure what the big deal is. If someone on the BBS doesn't like avatars, or has a slow connection, just turn them off. This is easily done by going into your user cp, edit options, and un-ckecking the box.*



*Thanks Carl, your explanation says it all.*


----------

