Old Scratch

That's not really relevant to what I was talking about, but all right.  I'm not sure how what boils down to "what exactly is that code doing to improve the site when there's simpler and more stable solutions available that aren't as frustrating for the users,"" complete with feedback on how those solutions could be handled, instead translates to "don't use Invision" to you.  But you guys seem to like to read what you want to when replying then go off on some weird tangent like that.  It's the third time it's happened in the last two days.   Regardless, I won't bother offering any more feedback after this:  You may want to consider changing the name of this subforum if you're so against actual feedback.  "How do I?" and "would it be possible to change" isn't feedback, they're questions about how to use the site and requests for features, neither of which is actual feedback.  They're not even bug reports.

So, mobile friendliness only for some mobile devices, so if it only breaks in some browsers people are still using and makes the site pretty much useless when it does, sucks to be them?  Considering that appears to be the main selling point for the new forum based on various posts, that seems a strange take to have on the subject. That said, why is there this continued preference for an overcomplicated fix for what appears to be a non-existent problem that cripples more than it helps?  Especially when there are more elegant solutions  Like, exactly what problem is that code supposed to be fixing?  Because if you're going through all of that only to make sure the height of an image doesn't get out of control (and it only would if someone really really wanted to do it, which they easily could through other means as I tested out), that's a really weird way to handle it whether you like javascript or not.  I mean, what's stopping someone from just creating an image that's like 100px by 10,000,000px and posting that? Oh, and for the record, I often used the old site with javascript disabled as it was required on my work PC, and it worked fine; just a few minor bugs (the only ones I ever noticed being the icon at the bottom of the main page next to the list of online users and stuff that someone wanted to hide rather than remove like whatever the search bar at the bottom of the listing of a threadgroup was supposed to be for, the latter of which one can't blame them for given the mess the code is in).  It certainly never had any impact on anything noteworthy that I've seen, especially as far as posts go.  And after having just tested it here, though, I don't see anything that's really amiss either.  Which makes me doubly wonder what the point is of the convoluted img stuff is as the only thing that I can see is happening with it off is that its taking a second for images to pop up as you scroll down, presumably because the addon is scrubbing out the code on the fly.  Worse still, that means that whatever it's doing, it's including something that's intentionally breaking images in Safari (hint: it's the data-src switcheroo with the transparent pixel) since the images are all still showing up fine with javascript disabled. I mean, even just using the original image's url in place of the transparent pixel would solve most of the problem if you really, really, absolutely, positively need to have that javascript there for its more Mysterious Reasons™.  It's getting resized either way, so I'm not sure why that's there to begin with. Oh, and again, I apologize if I come across somewhat confrontational or mean-spirited, which I know happens a lot. I'm on the spectrum and have trouble with social interaction, online and off.  I have a very difficult time telling when I am and when I'm not.

I don't use mobile devices for my online gaming all that often (read: pretty much never), but on a whim I went to have a look to see how this site was showing up on it so as to make my designs better. Lo' and behold, I discovered that all the bending-over-backwards to insure mobile-friendliness is screwing things up hard, at least on Safari.  This is particularly true with images.  Admittedly, my iPad is an older generation one from around 2010, but there's no reason images (and most of the other issues I've spotted) should be behaving this way on it. Here's one example. The first picture is how it should look like/what it does look like in Chrome on a PC. The second is what Safari is doing on my iPad. Height differences are just due to the size of my monitor vs. the iPad.  And to alleviate claims that it's me being an imbecile with my coding, I took the screen shots from bwatford's Homebrew thread and only added a width limitation on the IMG tags below. They're also links if you want to see the larger version, though there's no real reason for that.       Adding max-height: 100%; max-width: 100%; in whatever container you're using for individual posts (or whatever other CSS you're using to manage image widths), and then stripping out both of those variables with your parser should have what I presume is the intended effect while still allowing people to put in their own custom widths and heights as needed. All with no gross javascript required (nevermind quite a few people disable javascript completely anyway).  Though admittedly I haven't tested it out so I could easily be wrong there. And yes, sometimes you do want/need to set a different height than the default image, especially when designing a layout for a post and using one image that needs to be adjusted multiple times (such as the old faithful one-pixel transparent image). Not often, sure, but when you need to you really need to. The whole "wrapping it in javascript and stripping out user-defined height while simultaneously forcing in height: auto; (which, incidentally, is the default behavior of literally every browser since Mosaic and should only be required if you're inexplicably changing height's behavior universally in your stylesheets)" move is just bizarre and far, far, far away more prone to screwing up.  As demonstrated in the above screenshots.  Oh, and it also makes sure they don't disappear when you go to edit a post which, you know, screws up the whole what-you-see-is-what-you-get concept.