Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me, it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is, staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD....:-\
Bob On 10/11/2011 8:17 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * David Gerard wrote: >> Not sure the blurring system would do the job for a workplace. At a >> distance, the blurred penis still looks exactly like a penis ... > There are many alternatives to a blur effect. A much simpler effect > would be a Small Images option that shrinks all images to icon size. > The information you get is about the same as with a blur effect, but > the images would be even easier to ignore and couldn't be recognized > at a distance. There would be problems with maps as the point over- > lay depends on the size, but that should not be that hard to fix. > > It would also match what I do when I am unsure whether I am about to > load some web page which I am not sure I want to see the images on, > I tell my browser to zoom out, load the page, and then decide whether > it's okay to zoom in, or if I should go View -> Images -> No Images, > or close the page or whatever. > > It's interesting to note that advocates of discriminatory schemes do > not discuss, as far as I am aware, how to communicate the tagging of > some images as somehow controversial to users who do not filter. I'd > wonder how they feel about adding some notice like "Seeing this image > makes some people feel bad" to the image caption for all images that > would be filtered by one of the discriminatory filter options. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
