00:07:14 <njsg> < Sompi> When was the last time that JavaScript got some new API feature that actually does something that wasn't possible before by using some older standard function? <-- here I'm afraid my answer is "the point when it became Turing-complete"
00:07:45 <njsg> (but I do understand what you're saying)
00:35:00 <nsITobin> why does an event driven scriping language need to be turing-complete?
00:35:03 <nsITobin> njsg:
00:35:54 <nsITobin> objectively speaking I am not sure there is anything today I couldn't do in 2008 or even 2005 sans 3d video shit
00:36:15 <nsITobin> that is.. actually depressing as hell
00:38:32 <nsITobin> i mean in terms of technical capability obviously if I knew how to do it all then.. well.. you'd all be working for me under a new Netscape Communications Corperation but the fact remains.. video and 3d shit.. aside from that.. what have we objectively gained since 2008? Cause we had online stores, paypal, ebay, bill pay, social networking, youtube, websites webapps php python etc
00:39:54 <nsITobin> we did not have that hardly at all a decade before that and a decade before that the internet was more like a paid-for bbs ..
00:41:58 <nsITobin> my only conclusion really has been .. politicing and power playing to see who controls dictates and supplies said iteration of the same late 90s concepts
03:49:35 <Sompi> exactly, I haven't seen any new functionality during the years I have been online
03:54:23 <Sompi> if anything, almost everything just works worse now
11:13:52 <njsg> Javascript in itself, at least over a decade ago, looked like an interesting LISP-y language, but I haven't been keeping tabs on how its integration with the web, HTML and the DOM have shifted
11:53:29 <Sompi> why so many textboxes on modern websites are actually overly complex javascript thingies that consist of megabytes of minified javascript
11:53:45 <Sompi> usually they try to mimic a normal HTML textbox but they are actually made with javascript
11:54:01 <Sompi> and basic things like jumping over words with ctrl+arrows don't work or crash the thing
11:54:27 <Sompi> that has been a thing for a while and it seems to become more and more common
11:57:13 <njsg> that's an awful trend UI-wise, and yes, I've seen it
11:57:45 <njsg> form elements will not easily get the platform theming (but I guess many webdesigners now see consistency as bad)
11:58:01 <njsg> and then all expectations about how it will work are off because it may or may not work like the real thing
11:59:28 <Sompi> they don't even test those properly
11:59:46 <Sompi> for example Youtube's comment section, the "textbox" where you write a new comment
11:59:55 <Harzilein> <njsg> form elements will not easily get the platform theming (but I guess many webdesigners now see consistency as bad)
12:00:03 <Harzilein> emphasis on what you have in parenthesis
12:00:29 <Sompi> it must have a separate text buffer somewhere, hidden from the user. often the actual comment is missing characters or still has some characters that I already deleted when writing it
12:00:30 <Harzilein> "desktop" websites are back to c64 circumstances really
12:01:04 <Sompi> and if you press enter while the caret is at the end of the comment, it creates two (2) newlines instead of one
12:01:21 <Harzilein> heh
12:01:49 <Sompi> and it is just a textbox, it doesn't have any formatting options
12:01:56 <Sompi> and it is made by Google
12:02:09 <Sompi> so even Google is so incompetent that they cannot get stuff like that working properly
12:05:25 <Sompi> and they could just use a html textbox
12:05:46 <Sompi> seriously, that is a security risk. the comment ends up having characters that I already removed from it
12:06:02 <Sompi> and that is the new normal
12:07:26 <njsg> Harzilein: I'll call that "Steve Jobs design" :-P
12:07:43 <njsg> (after what he pushed for in smartphones, saying UI consistency was bad)
12:13:54 <Sompi> usually those javascript textboxes also stutter very heavily when writing to them
12:14:17 <Sompi> they are stuck for 2 ... 5 seconds and then the characters start appearing
12:26:09 <Sompi> ...somehow almost everything "modern" is just horrible in every way possible :/
12:29:41 <njsg> "almost" accounts for computer modern, then?
12:29:41 <Harzilein> Sompi: i wonder if the marketing writers of "modern xyz" projects are aware of that that there exists a population of people for whom that self-identification is a red flag.
12:30:04 <Harzilein> njsg: it doesn't call itself a "modern font" though.
12:30:16 <Sompi> njsg: not only computing. I mean everything technical
12:30:23 <Harzilein> Sompi: it's about the font name
12:31:04 <Harzilein> Sompi: that one is more about craftsmanship. or rather hardcore nerding onself into a topic as knuth does :D
12:31:11 <Harzilein> oneself*
12:32:03 <Harzilein> it's basically a demo of innovations metafont brought to the table of nascent digital type design at its inception.
12:33:06 <njsg> TeX is also, I think, a good example of trying to keep things stable (in the debian sense)
12:34:15 <njsg> unless I'm mistaken, problems arising from different versions will only show up for packages or maybe LaTeX itself, but not TeX
12:34:49 <Harzilein> it also still looks very beautiful to me, despite the other masterpieces knuth managed to work with due to his "sudden" well-connectedness in typography circles :D
12:35:02 <Harzilein> it = the font
15:05:02 <franstam> they need an excuse for the 5ghz multicore processors for work to do
15:05:31 <franstam> otherwise its a waste of $$$ idling them at 800 mhz at the desktop using 0% utilization
15:26:21 <njsg> I propose getting JS-enabled web development done on a General Purpose Computer! :-P
15:26:53 <tomman> can't wait for JS native CPUs
15:27:16 <njsg> ("General Purpose Computer" as in IBM AP-101)
15:27:20 <tomman> ...but that means you'll need new silicon every time Google ships a major Chrome release
15:27:54 <tomman> Unless you do implement it on a FPGA, but that would kinda suck for performance
17:00:17 <Sompi> Can a computer really be considered a "general purpose computer" if it is boot locked and can boot only one program, which usually is the factory-installed operating system?
17:00:42 <Sompi> Operating systems are always limiting
17:10:26 <Sompi> for example many real-time things are impossible on Windows, and also on Linux
17:10:43 <Sompi> things that the hardware could easily do
17:11:25 <Sompi> It's not very "general purpose" if it cannot even control an engine or a CNC machine
17:28:25 <nsITobin> Sompi: sounds perfectly orthadox to me, brother.
17:28:36 <nsITobin> maybe you need to visit the ministry of love
17:30:00 <nsITobin> seriously tho its just they want nothing more advanced than a pocket phone regardless of screensize
17:31:14 <nsITobin> these car tablets in place of stereo head units for example.. aside from android apps its no different than the firmware touch screen stereos that preceeded it
17:31:41 <nsITobin> and those aren't any more capable than any car cd player that preceeded that
17:32:06 <nsITobin> except I can't run it without looking
17:32:20 <nsITobin> i can't run a touch screen by touch alone and that is its biggest flaw
17:33:42 <Harzilein> oh and one special beef i have: custom combo boxes. i understand devs want to add completions, but if their form becomes useless if their styling isn't implemented perfectly in browsers, they ought to not enhance from the regular ones (hehe, right, as if webdevs these days paid any concern to progressive enhancement)
17:34:35 <Harzilein> nsITobin: even star trek designers knew this and wrote "lcars panels all have force feedback" into the technical manual.
17:35:44 <nsITobin> yeah so does my pixel 7a most advanced hepatic feedback ever simulates a button push.. WORTHLESS WHEN THE SURFACE IS SMOOTH i have crap fine motor skills i often use surrounding protruberences to guide where I want to place my finger
17:36:01 <nsITobin> Harzilein: and another thing.. Tom Paris and the Delta Flyer..
17:36:08 <nsITobin> he sums it up perfectly
17:36:21 <Harzilein> probably something about wanting a stick?
17:36:33 <nsITobin> while you may get feedback you don't have a physical button on that transparent aluminum capacitive surface
17:37:07 <nsITobin> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Oaq4l0_5x0
17:37:14 <Harzilein> i always assumed from that technical manual bit that transporter sliders and that 2d circle would "snap" your finger to feel a sphere or groove.
17:37:27 <nsITobin> star trek predicted touch screens suck
17:37:36 <nsITobin> the technical manual is not canon
17:37:39 <nsITobin> btw
17:38:05 <Harzilein> afaik it is considered canon and writers would need a reason to deviate from it.
17:38:31 <Harzilein> just like the encyclopedia is expected reference materials for the series writers.
17:38:44 <Harzilein> both made by actual series staff.
17:38:57 <nsITobin> Canon is defined historically as Everything on screen and one epsiode of TAS .. today its Everything on Screen regardless.. books games technical manuals none of it is canon
17:39:08 <Harzilein> i don't mean novels
17:39:27 <nsITobin> everything live action on screen plus a tas episode.. that was Genes word.. CBS's is everything on screen is canon.
17:39:42 <nsITobin> ESPECIALLY nutrek
17:40:12 <Harzilein> i'm sure gene approved whatever wording sternbach/okuda had as to canonicity of sttngtm
17:41:02 <nsITobin> no he didn't he was explicit that only he was the sole arbitor of canon and this is what is canon.. Everything live action and one episode of TAS.. that remained the case up until 2009
17:41:22 <Harzilein> i think "canon" wasn't as common back then. they surely called it "official".
17:42:36 <nsITobin> the star trek community basically invented the modern form of "canon"
17:42:40 <nsITobin> you do know that
17:43:33 <Harzilein> wikipedia states it as "pretty official" according to the same reason i used: writers used it as the base for things that got shown on screen.
17:43:48 <nsITobin> are you a star trek fan?
17:44:31 <Harzilein> i got the merch bug out of my system early on. i even had a ferengi mask. also wasted way too much on the tng ccg :D
17:45:02 <nsITobin> did you watch star trek in the 90s or 80s?
17:45:22 <Harzilein> i bought (or asked santa for ;) all literature i could get my hands on. dozens of novels i liked and nitpickers guide :)
17:45:35 <Harzilein> i watched german tng when it first aired.
17:45:54 <Harzilein> when it was still on public/state broadcaster, it was interrupted by a cooking segment %-)
17:47:30 <Harzilein> i missed tas entirely because it was part of a different one that sat.1 bought.
17:47:40 <Harzilein> different bundle than the one*
17:47:43 <nsITobin> this fucking artical on wikipedia is trash
17:48:51 <nsITobin> right now canon is everything produced live action and animated including TAS but this is NOT how it was and what was considered "Star Trek Official" was called canon long before I was born by the people who produced the show
17:48:53 <Harzilein> and tos was on cable for a time... i don't even know if sat.1 bought it. tele5 who currently have tng ds9 and voyager (and enterprise i think) doesn't seem to show it. mind you the dub is _shite_ and commercial broadcasters don't do DL here.
17:49:19 <Harzilein> +,
17:50:03 <nsITobin> i dunno why its explcitly lying about Gene's intentions
17:50:14 <Harzilein> i surely was fairly unfamiliar with tos crew when sat.1 showed the movies first.
17:51:17 <nsITobin> https://web.archive.org/web/20061111004556/https://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html
17:51:18 <nsITobin> here
17:51:27 <nsITobin> this is Gene's intention
17:52:05 <nsITobin> and Rick Berman honored it throughout his tenue
17:55:13 <nsITobin> and here is the same article from 2010 same page same date it was originally posted but the text has been rewritten to expand to include and UNinclude previously established canon
17:55:14 <nsITobin> https://web.archive.org/web/20100628174255/https://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html
17:57:18 <nsITobin> it was a rule as long as Gene's production staff was still in control of Star Trek.. once Abrams had control well he had to rewrite the rules .. and today anything can pass into and out of canon so there is no real star trek methos anymore and at BEST the communist utopia has been replaced with a more realistic vision of a dystopia
17:59:06 <nsITobin> so yeah Harzilein sorry but the question of Star Trek Canon and its implications mean just as much to me as mozilla history does
17:59:51 <nsITobin> i just can't figure out how can one aspire to a world that has no continity of history that remotely makes sense
18:00:18 <Harzilein> i currently have to do c&p twice to look at youtube, absolute time into episode would have helped more :/
18:01:12 <Harzilein> of course if paris says touch interfaces aren't as cool as they are made out to be that beats the "this fancy stuff accomodates anyone" perspective of the okuda/sternbach book.
18:01:17 <Harzilein> it's still a gorgeous book.
18:01:35 <nsITobin> you know why that point exists right?
18:02:01 <nsITobin> its so no one has to remember how to work the console.. because the console automatically adjusts to the user so every button pushed is the intended correct button
18:02:06 <nsITobin> that is from okuda himself
18:02:23 <Harzilein> yeah, was going to say, i heard a production-perspective answer
18:02:41 <nsITobin> this interface i glorifed as a child is one bread in ignorance
18:02:48 <Harzilein> may have even been in the italics/cartouched out-of-universe part of the book itself.
18:03:00 <nsITobin> ... wonder if kids will feel that way about metro and mobile UIs in 20 years
18:05:32 <nsITobin> Harzilein: remember future's end when starling downloaded Voyager's database and had a stacking window interface showing multiple LCARS readouts..
18:07:03 <nsITobin> and janeway later on describing it as stone knives and bear skins.. well that interface proved stacking is better than tiled and single-use
18:07:12 <Harzilein> :D
18:07:36 <Harzilein> i think i have only seen future's end once
18:07:48 <Harzilein> i may have recently half-listened to it on bananavision
18:08:41 <Harzilein> it's been a decade ago when i binged voyager, when my dad was bound to die from cancer.
18:09:17 <nsITobin> sorry to hear that.. too common a trend
18:11:17 <nsITobin> Harzilein: The real 90s surprise show was DS9.. it didn't start well and had a lot against it and in the 90s it was too dark at times.. but reruns in the 2000s.. apt.. very apt
18:11:30 <nsITobin> of course Babylon 5 was basically on the nose
18:11:46 <nsITobin> where DS9 stuck to alagory
18:12:49 <Harzilein> had the enterprise-d cutaway behind me and the ds9 one in front of me at my teenager computer battlestation :)
18:13:31 <Harzilein> the technical manual is near and dear to me because i scanned stuff from it with my b/w hand scanner :D
18:16:50 <Harzilein> didn't have the chance to watch b5 even at its first rerun. i remember seeing nice glossy pics of it in german edition of starlog.
18:17:46 <Harzilein> during the same time, sat.1 somehow got its hand on german fan production "star trek: highlander". it's no star wreck as production values go, but still pretty good.
18:18:39 <Harzilein> they possibly reached out to star trek fan club central europe figures when they did their first "long star trek night".
18:19:50 <Harzilein> when i went picking up st:tng ccg cards (those were still the original ones, at some point they tried translated ones, possibly because they thought it could become as huge as mtg ;)
18:20:47 <Harzilein> i tended to buy a sfce trekworld magazine too. those had nice renders on their color covers and some inside.
18:20:52 <Harzilein> an*
18:21:56 <Harzilein> trying to remember who their rendering expert/artist was. i think wasn't an uncommon name in fan circles.
18:22:00 <Harzilein> +it
18:22:06 <Harzilein> s/it/his/
18:44:48 <andr01d> One small thing that's annoying about the mozilla browsers (including seamonkey) is that if an image on a page is also a link, then there is no "View Image" entry in the right click menu. The logic of this UI choice is a mystery to me. Is one less likely to want to ciew an image if it's also a link?
18:47:54 <nsITobin> andr01d: https://i.ibb.co/TcZwCgD/image.png please indicate what I am missing
18:47:58 <Harzilein> wasn't that just a bug that eventually got fixed?
18:47:59 <Harzilein> but
18:48:11 <Harzilein> i feel that netscape would have liked that decision
18:48:43 <nsITobin> i see open link .. save link target.. copy link location view copy image save image yadda yadda
18:48:48 <Harzilein> like contemporary web devs, they had image snippets in table do a lot of work :D
18:48:51 <nsITobin> andr01d: so what are YOU expecting?
18:48:55 <Harzilein> in tables*
18:49:32 <nsITobin> andr01d doesn't know the web has a z-axis?
18:49:48 <Harzilein> at least android mozilla even has special "symmetric" ui for the image/link choice.
18:50:32 <nsITobin> i have a page with a link and an image i can fully interact with that stack of bits the link part and the image part
18:50:38 <nsITobin> so i don't see the erRor
18:55:39 <Harzilein> istr there _was_ a way to make images that happen to be links not recognizable as links for context menu population purposes. maybe not universally so. and it seems to have been so long in the past, webdevs causing it may actually not have done it by malice, just ignorance.
18:56:03 <Harzilein> out of*
18:56:47 <Harzilein> but i can't be bothered atm to find the bug description
19:06:43 <nsITobin> well images are often layered over so one has to interact with another element to reduce theft
19:06:59 <nsITobin> or images are backgrounds of other elements
19:07:07 <andr01d> nsITobin, that's not the same menu I see. In either sm or firefox, I have to View Image option
19:07:51 <nsITobin> andr01d: make an html testcase for us or link us to an offending page please
19:08:23 <andr01d> Do you have a preferred file sharing site? (preferably curl or otherwise cli)
19:09:29 <nsITobin> can't just pastebin some hatch tea em ell?
19:09:57 <andr01d> So pastebin...
19:10:44 <nsITobin> pastebin dpaste send it as an email
19:10:52 <nsITobin> whatever works best for you
19:11:58 <Harzilein> ,oO( smoke signals )
19:12:01 <nsITobin> 14 dollars I pay for email⊙mc. please feel free to use it
19:12:05 <nsITobin> a year
19:12:52 <nsITobin> my goal this year is to get tobin⊙bc and everything off google apps damn the consiquences
19:13:28 <nsITobin> i have my youtub channels authorized to a normal google account but i can't keep paying google 8 dollars a MONTH for free services
19:13:45 <nsITobin> i wish i never signed up for google apps domain back in 2011
19:13:48 <andr01d> Here's an image showing the menu with no view option:
19:13:49 <andr01d> https://pasteboard.co/iST6JxWJBe8o.png
19:14:12 <nsITobin> you can't link the url?
19:14:26 <andr01d> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/03/most-expensive-property-flooding-florida#img-1
19:14:44 <andr01d> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/03/most-expensive-property-flooding-florida
19:15:25 <andr01d> Right click the main image, no view image, if I right click the author's photo there is a view image
19:15:40 <nsITobin> andr01d: this is not real..
19:16:02 <andr01d> "not real"?
19:16:15 <nsITobin> this is using a div with a picture element and on the same level an A element which is your link. its layered
19:16:27 <nsITobin> as in it isn't a real <img/>
19:16:42 <nsITobin> its a picture element with an a block on top
19:16:51 <nsITobin> rather than an a tag with an image inside
19:16:54 <andr01d> OK, so that's probably why there is no "View Image", that's what I'm whining about...
19:17:03 <andr01d> Obviously, there is an image
19:17:25 <nsITobin> no
19:17:30 <nsITobin> there is a picture element
19:17:30 <andr01d> I'm not interested in writing the webpage, I'm interested in viewing the image it contains
19:17:40 <nsITobin> https://ibb.co/JKhN117
19:17:46 <andr01d> I don't really care what the html is
19:18:01 <nsITobin> andr01d: what makes you think you have the right to individually view or download images from a news website?
19:18:14 <nsITobin> this is why it is done this way to prevent this behavior
19:18:20 <andr01d> I "download" it everytime I look at the site
19:18:39 <andr01d> Obviously I see the image
19:18:53 <andr01d> I want to see the full resolution image if there is one
19:19:31 <andr01d> There is no paywall on theguardian.com, I want to see the full resolution image used in the page
19:19:32 <nsITobin> then use the tools at your disposal to get around creative layering and alternative images .. domi, devtools, and the fuckin page info media tab with a nice save as button works for anything save MSE content
19:19:58 <andr01d> OK, now we're back to where we started: There is no View Image menu choice
19:20:10 <nsITobin> because that isn't valid in the way they set this up
19:20:19 <nsITobin> seamonkey's behavior is correct
19:20:30 <andr01d> I can use the View Page Info, and go to media, but it's not as direct and it doesn't display the image in the browser
19:20:49 <andr01d> It's not valid to view that image? That doesn't make sense.
19:20:56 <nsITobin> it isn't an image
19:21:19 <nsITobin> its a picture tag with source tags
19:21:25 <andr01d> You're thinking of it from the perspective of someone structuring the webpage, I'm concerned with viewing the website, I don't really care what the structure is, I just want to see the pictrure
19:21:26 <nsITobin> behind a solid layer
19:21:31 <nsITobin> a link block
19:22:06 <nsITobin> and if they wanted you to see it they would have made it easy to do so
19:22:16 <nsITobin> they want you to view it in a lightbox and not download it
19:22:20 <nsITobin> or direct link it
19:22:43 <andr01d> Or maybe they just use a framework, and this is what we get.
19:23:01 <nsITobin> The context menu is operating as designed. The page is operating as THEY intended it. Why do you think you get a say?
19:23:09 <andr01d> That's why I'd prefer that the browser navigate this structure and give me a way to directly view the source image
19:23:30 <nsITobin> it does several
19:23:34 <andr01d> I get a say in how I view their website
19:23:47 <andr01d> This is what the browser should provide
19:23:59 <andr01d> The broser is for me, not the creator of the website
19:24:07 <nsITobin> but andr01d end users don't need to do anything but consume with their eyeballs and spread links.. anything more requires effort on YOUR part not the seamonkey project's
19:24:38 <nsITobin> oh and click ads of course but that is more mozoogle than sm
19:25:00 <andr01d> A child of the goggle era...  You just look at what WE want you to see...
19:25:21 <andr01d> I restructure things routinely with the inspect element feature
19:25:45 <andr01d> I'm concerned with my viewing experience, and a lot of the time this requires working around how the corpse created the site.
19:25:47 <nsITobin> well i used DOMi to find out why it isn't giving standard behavior because its not a standard setup
19:25:50 <andr01d> That's what the browser is for
19:25:52 <nsITobin> you can't code for non-standards
19:26:03 <nsITobin> and attempting to do so makes you WhatWG
19:26:15 <nsITobin> i think that has been an overarching point for years now?
19:27:19 <andr01d> I also browse that site with no cookies and no javascript. This is also not how the creator intended.
19:27:25 <andr01d> What can I say, I'm a heretic
19:27:36 <nsITobin> well you're not being a very aware one
19:27:45 <andr01d> I don't give a shit what the creator intended, I'm concerned with my interest in the content
19:28:11 <nsITobin> I think the engine should reject this kind of nonsense as the nonsense it is.. and people should have to use standard image tags
19:28:19 <andr01d> Like I said, I just want the browser to show my the image, I don't want to have to code html to get there
19:28:30 <nsITobin> it's not your image
19:28:37 <nsITobin> you have no entitlement to it
19:28:46 <andr01d> It's put on the public internet, its mine to view
19:28:48 <nsITobin> to view it to download it to do anything you can't click on it to do
19:29:12 <nsITobin> yeah but you don't get to go and take it out of its frame and fold it up and stick it in your pocket
19:29:32 <andr01d> I have no knowledge of the frame, nordo I want any knowledge of the frame
19:29:47 <andr01d> I'm viewing the image that's p[ublicly displayted
19:29:51 <nsITobin> then i have no desire to assist or interact with you
19:29:57 <nsITobin> you're on your own.
19:30:22 <andr01d> Well, I would point out that you did interact
19:31:09 <nsITobin> You're exactly the kind of user who justifies them going to extremes.
19:31:38 <andr01d> For what purpose? I'm just trying to see the image they include in their article
19:31:47 <andr01d> This is basically an assessability issue
19:31:47 <nsITobin> you think cause you pull it up on the screen its yours to do with as you see fit.. the same mentality that drives people to steal my shit for the same reasons..
19:32:05 <andr01d> "Do with as I see fit", you mean: look at it?
19:32:16 <nsITobin> its on the page .. you can zoom in
19:32:24 <nsITobin> it gets bigger when clicked on
19:32:34 <andr01d> That doesn't show me the full resolution, that may be in the page source
19:33:01 <andr01d> I disable js, a lot of time there are multiple resolution images, I want to see the highest res available
19:33:44 <nsITobin> that is all they allow for you to do with their content.. me i don't pull that shit i use standard image tags and links like a responsible webmaster but that is WHY they feel justfied because you feel justfied exploiting anything they don't block.. That is how this war over digital rights management has escilated and as a CONSIQUENCE made the browser the frontlines in that war
19:34:30 <andr01d> Like I said, I can go to the main menu, View Page Info, click the media tab, the full image is there. But it isn't readily available to just pop up in the browser, as with View Image
19:35:00 <andr01d> I don't know who's "stealing your shit", but it's not me. So please don't take your frustrations out on me.
19:35:25 <andr01d> The browser is the "end userss" par tof the web surfing. It should be to serve the "end user" not the creator of the web page
19:35:31 <nsITobin> then lrn2code and work out the insane logic of infinate layering to make sure you always get an image and then deal with MULTIPLE layers of images and MULTUIPLE sources
19:35:38 <nsITobin> this is not proper html
19:35:55 <nsITobin> and it feels disgusting that it renders at all..
19:36:23 <andr01d> Well, welcome to 2024. This is what we have
19:37:30 <nsITobin> no this is what was imposed.. we we HAD still largely works AS-IS
19:37:33 <nsITobin> andr01d: :P
19:37:58 <nsITobin> what we*
19:39:06 <nsITobin> andr01d: you know if you enable javascript click on the image and then rightclick on the larger image in the lightbox it will give you view image
19:39:57 <nsITobin> but you are expecting seamonkey to do something design wise is improper and expect the web of 2024 to work without javascript AND not have any compramises or issues.. You sound like a Pale Moon user.
19:40:03 <nsITobin> i suggest you address that.
19:40:47 <andr01d> I'm amazed at how much of the internet still works without js. I don't like allowing it, and when I can, I leave it disabled. I have a different browser open that allows js and cookies for site that won't render otherwise. But in general theguardian.com works pretty well with js disabled
19:41:33 <nsITobin> it isn't a CASE of the internet working or not working with JS its how much has been INTENTALLY DESIGNED to work with JS.. you can't even DISABLE javascript in modern browsers
19:41:51 <andr01d> That's why I'm running seamonkey...
19:42:35 <andr01d> Like I said, I'm not really concerned wuith the people who are paid to produce those websites, I'm not producing them, I'm viewing them. That's my concern.
19:42:49 <nsITobin> there is no reason a website can't still today be coded to not require any JS or the most basic minimal JS and the server side bits are still ALSO coded in javascript.. its that is NOT what people are told they want by a select few
19:43:06 <andr01d> I've spent decades learn2coding 8-/ But I don't code fo rthe internet, and I really really don't want to...
19:44:14 <nsITobin> tell me andr01d when you look at some image embedded in some desktop application do you get upset you can't rightclick and view image?
19:44:35 <nsITobin> this news site is not a WEB site its a WEB app
19:44:53 <andr01d> If that application is local to my computer, I can examine the executable, or other resources, and view the raw image
19:45:08 <nsITobin> you don't get to view image on your live television do you?
19:45:19 <nsITobin> local applications lol
19:45:32 <andr01d> I don't view live TV, I only view locally stored media
19:46:15 <nsITobin> your future is the present and its been in your pocket for a decade
19:46:22 <andr01d> I also don't view youtuber, netflix, hulu, amazon prime, none of it. It all gives too much control to the corpse
19:46:26 <nsITobin> that is the "accepted" future of course
19:48:04 <nsITobin> anyway andr01d if i put a standard image on a page then give a div a higher zindex and make it cover the image you ALSO won't get a View Image in seamonkey
19:48:09 <nsITobin> that is standard html
19:48:16 <nsITobin> not crazy picture source
19:48:41 <nsITobin> the block you click on simply is not an image or a has a child that is an image
19:50:32 <nsITobin> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/picture
19:51:08 <nsITobin> if the a tag contained this it would work as you expect i GATHER .. but not how the html was coded
19:51:22 <nsITobin> well marked up.. but also coded
19:51:56 <andr01d> I'm sure everything you mention is technically accurate. But your focus is on the server side of the connection, whereas I'm (in this case) only concerned with the client side. I'm sure the html structure is wacky, the modern internet is very wacky. My hope is that the browser continues to do it's best to allow th eclient side to intereact with the server side in the way that best serves the end user, no the server side.
19:52:37 <andr01d> My original post was not actually asking for a fix or resolution, just that this lack of "View Image" is annoying
19:52:51 <nsITobin> its not annoying its a faulty expectation
19:52:58 <nsITobin> you're simply wrong to expect that
19:53:01 <andr01d> This really is an accessibility issue.
19:53:12 <nsITobin> no it isn't
19:53:18 <nsITobin> the site is designed to use javascript
19:53:41 <nsITobin> javascript provides the accessibility by way of lightbox wich provides a naked image element you can view image on
19:53:53 <nsITobin> your own choices and expectations are faulty in this specific case
19:54:04 <nsITobin> it does not conform to classic nor modern html rules or logic
19:54:23 <nsITobin> nor prevailing crappy forces out in the industry
19:54:48 <andr01d> Sorry, I have to disagree. I see the image, I want ready access to it's full resolution. To me, that doesn't seem faulty.
19:55:03 <nsITobin> you choose that
19:55:24 <nsITobin> you are choosing to cripple your own accesibility in the name of accessibility and not wanting to click too many times
19:55:33 <nsITobin> or think too hard
19:55:35 <nsITobin> or learn
19:55:44 <andr01d> I appreciate your time and perspective. Thanks
19:57:14 <nsITobin> I doubt it.
19:57:19 <nsITobin> but that's ok
21:54:58 <njsg> Sompi: I know this isn't what you're talking about, but the General Purpose Computer can run two different software systems, and IIRC what's loaded probably can change easily inside a system given I recall something about loading and unloading parts of PASS :-)
21:56:07 <njsg> nsITobin: a pocket phone these days seems to be a bit limited to some desktop OSes. maybe things have changed recently, though.
21:58:36 <njsg> nsITobin: how's it, 2001 predicted them and star trek predicted they would suck, or 2001 only predicted tablets?
22:00:10 <njsg> 1203|17:47:01 < Harzilein> when it was still on public/state broadcaster, it was interrupted by a cooking segment %-) <-- now that's a difference compared with star wars, star wars had the cooking segment as part of it, no need to interrupt
22:01:52 <nsITobin> being a developer sucks
22:06:46 * njsg gets to the image not img part of the backlog...
22:08:34 <njsg> andr01d: another workaround View -> Use Style -> None. Might mess up the display a lot, depending on what the page has, but at least sometimes that makes images directly "accessible" for right-clicking. Seems to work for the guardian.
22:10:21 <njsg> nsITobin: now I'm wondering if images in Lisp Machine OSes are right-clickable in that fashion :-P
22:11:07 <nsITobin> i was too harsh.. i am always too harsh
22:16:42 <tomman> nsITobin: no, THIS is being too harsh: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/09/once-again-seeking-batteries-for-fortified-aviator-bike-light/
22:17:36 <njsg> nsITobin: what I'm wondering is if there is some update that needs to be done to consider these images too, e.g. adding or accounting for a living standard element, or if this is really just intentionally making the images inacessible this way
22:17:48 <nsITobin> so like any time I asked the Pale Moon forum for lists of extensions tomman
22:17:49 <nsITobin> lol
22:17:54 <nsITobin> yes that is too harsh
22:18:27 <nsITobin> njsg: you wanna code up the heuristics for finding VISUALLY there images even tho the block doesn't contain one?
22:18:28 <nsITobin> lol
22:18:40 <njsg> andr01d: pardon the question, but do you browse with javascript disabled in SeaMonkey or is it blocked with NoScript? If the latter, it might be possible to solve this with surrogates at least for sites you visit frequently (might be the case of this one given it's a news outlet?)
22:19:13 <njsg> nsITobin: no, first I'd have to fully understand what does the code currently do :-)
22:19:15 <andr01d> Thanks njsg! That does totally scramble the layout, but it also does give direct access to the image. Also, nsITobin, Thanks! really, having a technical disagreement is nothing to be upset about, and I'm not upset at you. Thanks for sharing your expertise...
22:20:03 <tomman> be glad this is not Hackernews :D
22:20:15 <tomman> ...or worse, Slashdot
22:20:50 <njsg> nsITobin: it's entirely possible that devising a way to account for this, as opposed to just adding a type of element, would require doing the nsDocumentViewer::GetInImage / _setTargetForNodesNoChildren() check in a different way
22:21:03 <njsg> (wait, NoChildren?)
22:21:37 <njsg> tomman: slashdot *worse* than hacker news?
22:21:42 <nsITobin> njsg: from the clicks perspective the picture element and its source and img children are siblings and cousons to the a block
22:21:56 <nsITobin> not children OF the a tag
22:21:57 <tomman> njsg: there was a reason I fled away from /. to HN in 2020
22:22:04 <tomman> not sure how well it's doing nowadays
22:22:18 <tomman> "sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'll never know"
22:22:25 <njsg> tomman: ah ok, I haven't been actually following /., although I did make a submission there this year
22:22:57 <njsg> no idea how is it currently doing, how long ago did CmdrTaco leave?
22:27:33 <nsITobin> slashdot?
22:27:40 <nsITobin> does that still exist?
22:27:53 <njsg> it does
22:55:04 <njsg> andr01d: (And View->Use Style->Default Style to revert to the styled view - it just occurred to me that it's probably good to mention this along with the previous advice out of caution, at least for logbot :-) )
22:55:30 <nsITobin> njsg: bots.. plurel
22:57:01 <njsg> nsITobin: indeed
22:57:20 <njsg> s@logbot⊙l.? botten?@
23:19:28 <nsITobin> LOL
23:23:15 <nsITobin> boxen i like as the plural for bot
23:23:19 <nsITobin> njsg:
23:42:01 <njsg> botsen?
23:55:44 <nsITobin> that's good
23:56:06 <nsITobin> a whole group of logging botsen
23:56:15 <nsITobin> WORKSFORME
23:57:24 <njsg> there's also botit!
23:57:59 <njsg> it's the plural of botti not bot but here you go https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/botti