Open
Bug 504363
Opened 15 years ago
Updated 2 years ago
Images with a REJECT_SERVER content policy should not be completely hidden
Categories
(Firefox :: General, defect)
Firefox
General
Tracking
()
NEW
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
blocking2.0 | --- | - |
People
(Reporter: Natch, Unassigned)
Details
(Keywords: polish, uiwanted, Whiteboard: [icon-namoroka][icon-needed])
Summary says all, but I'm not sure why this was originally done. The load can be stopped but the broken image icon should show. This is useful if one wants to reload a single image, and even just to retain the website's layout.
Flags: wanted-firefox3.6?
Updated•15 years ago
|
OS: Windows Vista → All
Hardware: x86 → All
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
Alex, are you ok with making this change? Currently there are two type of image blocking behavior: 1) Uncheck "Load Images Automatically" in Tools->Options->Content and the broken image icon is shown in place of the image. 2) Right-click an image on a page and select "Block images from <host name>...", and the page is reloaded and the images cease to exist (no place holder or even empty space where the image was, just no image). I'm proposing to change the second case to match the first.
Comment 2•15 years ago
|
||
Perhaps instead of the broken image use the image loading placeholder for both situations? http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/layout/generic/loading-image.png Broken-image currently is designed to imply that something outside of your control has gone wrong, which isn't really the case here (loading the image is inside of your control, and nothing has gone wrong). Alternatively we could design a third style icon that more accurately represents that the image was intentionally not loaded for both scenarios.
Whiteboard: [icon-namoroka][icon-needed]
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2) > Alternatively we could design a third style icon that more accurately > represents that the image was intentionally not loaded for both scenarios. That makes the most sense to me, as the image isn't really "loading". Would be real nice to get an image blocked placeholder and use it for both. Maybe something with a Ø in it (as in "image was blocked")?
Comment 4•15 years ago
|
||
>Maybe something with a Ø in it (as in "image was blocked")?
yep, and that would nicely match how we express blocking elsewhere in the app (like popups) so it would be self describing. I think the main complaint we are going to get is that showing an icon for unloaded images will caused some increased visual clutter. So I think we might want to go for more of a water mark or embossed look for all three of these icons (blocked, loading, error), especially now that we support PNG instead of just gif files.
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•15 years ago
|
||
Keep in mind when creating these images that they will serve as a background, with foreground text over it. The foreground text is extracted from the alt attribute on the image tag.
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•15 years ago
|
||
This could make for a nice polish bug for 1.9.3. As it stands, turning off images is pretty ugly on most websites.
blocking2.0: --- → ?
Keywords: polish
Updated•14 years ago
|
blocking2.0: ? → -
Updated•2 years ago
|
Severity: normal → S3
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•