Hhm, interesting that the images are placed before the text. That's probably not what most people will expect, although it's probably not a serious problem.
I'm not sure if I see a lightbox.... ?? When I click on the image, they show up in another page with a black background. Have to use browser Back button to go back and click on the other image
Here's what I see when I click on the second image (my first attachment below). I see a black transparent overlay over the entire page (this is usually called a lightbox or a modal overlay) with the original picture at the center. I see left and right arrows and the X close button in the top right corner.
This is what happens when I click on any attached images.
Yes, I see that today. But I didn't see that when I tested a couple of days ago.
Also, the thumbnails are displayed differently today. 2 days ago, they had white or transparent background. Today they have a light blue/gray background. (That background might be coming from my system theme, I'm not sure. But it wasn't there a couple of days ago.)
Also, I don't see any full size image. Have we done away with that now?
Also, in the op, I originally had 2 images there, one attached, one inserted. For some reason, today, only one image is showing.
Unless I still don't understand, the link feature didn't work. Even though I was trying to insert an image, but have a link instead, it appears to have attached it. Either that's weird, or I still don't understand.
The gray background behind the thumbnails is new, I added that a couple of days ago. It hovers orange, orange seems to be accent color on the website so I went with it. Styles can be changed of course, just let me know how to improve them.
I think the full size is still shown when only one image is attached, it may be overriding the link feature, I'm not sure. No it hasn't been scrapped, I just moved it to display below the text. Not as any suggestion, this is very much a WIP and I hope you (@brynn) have some time to untangle the attachments display issue.
That is why I asked for a discussion on GL, the whole attachment business seems confused. It's not just the discussions on GL, I also look at the code to try to understand what the end goal might be, but it's just more questions for me, especially in light of the discussions. I think Martin may have rushed to implement features to please the forum godesses, but I think a better description of what is needed should come first.
I understand there are some security things to consider when attaching images from external sources. They should definitely be downloaded to our server, if we are to implement that, and I think we may have that already. But it also makes sense to accept only the whitelisted services, the ones you listed in the Forum instructions.
I'm still not sure what the security constraints are, what were Martin's suggestions, it read much more like a discussion and not a firm boundary of what is not allowed. I wish Martin would come forth and clarify that :) But with my web dev experience images are not to be messed about when it comes to security, they are the easiest pathway to hackers.
I know we're not whitelisting the external services yet, but your list is a great start.
Yes the links to files are shown as a dropdown under Attachments button. I think we need some more styles adjustments on that button.
Thank you @brynn for writing up your ideal case, that will resolve all that Attachments discussion :) I'll work on it tomorrow, then you can test and see if there is anything else that needs to be fixed before going live.
BTW I also favor the old animated smileys (as they were called in the olden days), Yahoo messenger had the best collection of the basic ones, and SmileyXtra project did the rest :)
We can always replace or augment the emoji/emilies, but they have to be a) good looking (subjective I know), but more importantly b) open source/free culture licensed. Which is a harder ask and there are smaller selections to choose from. Some of them could be animated by our artists here though over time if that's what they want.
Martin. Would it be possible for us to draw our own emojis, after all, that's what we do, draw! May I suggest that down the road a bit when things settle, we do an emoji (animated and non animated) contest and pick emojis from those? We could do another contest to get personal badges too... (unsure of the real name, brynn's turtle for ex).
I would only use those with licenses which allow it. All those hundreds of smileys I have on Inkscape Community are free to use! (You think I would use them against their license?)
If we use them I would suggest to post a message somewhere, crediting the artists. But they are all free to use without credit. As I've offered before, I would be glad to manage them for this forum.
It's not that they are free to use, it's that they have a definitate license (or public domain declaration) and a definable authorship. i.e. we went to this website, they said what the license was for their icon pack, it's a free culture license and we know they made the icons and didn't just copy them from other people. etc etc.
Unfortunatly "free to use" isn't a license, so it's not sufficient.
Most permissive and copyleft licenses are ok. As long as it's compatible with the website (AGPLv3) and isn't NC/ND and can be confirmed.
We're already using an emoji set from I think it's the OneEmoji set, so it's not too hard to replace. Although I think @brynn would like to use animated ones?
Unfortunatly "free to use" isn't a license, so it's not sufficient
Well I could look up the licenses and show them to you. I have read them all! When I said "free to use" I was making a general statement, not quoting the specific licenses. I don't clearly understand....well I don't understand at all, what you're trying to say. Those smileys on Inkscape Community all came from their original artists' websites, where I read each and every license. And if you look around, you'll find the message where I credit all the artists (with links back to their websites). I did not just find them somewhere on the internet and steal them.
It's because I enjoy them so much, that I spent many hours searching and finding those which are legal to use, and organizing and managing them for Inkscape Community.
Sorry @brynn I didn't intend to imputiate your good name. I was trying to make it clear that a legal use (here and on your forum) isn't sufficient. Because we need content that's not just usable, but editable, sharable and etc. It's a specificy which isn't common to most website projects, but Free Software projects have to be more attentive to the exact licenses to make sure it's all compatible.
I don't understand why smileys would need to be editable. They aren't used in the context of being editable or sharable. (No one expects them to be. I've never heard of anyone wanting them to be.) They're just not used in that context. They're used as a supplement to the text. I think that might be taking the free software concept a little too far.
Let's see, can I grab your profile picture and edit it? If that needs to be editable, we should probably say so on the setting page, because I don't intend for mine to be up for grabs. What about the font? I'm not sure if I could even identify which font I see here, much less figure out if I'm allowed to edit it. But where do we draw the line? What about attachments? Are we only supposed to upload images that anyone can take and use?
I don't get the point of following a concept beyond logical use or needs.
It would become part of the website code. And the website code needs to use a license that allows editing and sharing. Else we cannot publish it in the website's code repository.
We can use your two examples as a good basis for an explaination:
The Font (e.g. EuphoriaScript)
Stored in the git repository
Deployed to the static directory as part of the website's codebase
Licensed under the Free Font License
Editable & sharable, in fact a contributor added diacritics to the Euphoria font and we taught them how to contribute those changes to the original author.
The Avatar
Stored in the media directory upon upload
Controllable by the person who uploaded the content
No License, all rights reserved, implied permission to use the avatar as an avatar.
Not editable or sharable without further permission. No one else should use the avatar.
Emoji Icons
Stored in the git repository
Deployed in the static directory as part of the website's codebase
Licensed under a Creative Comons or other free software or free culture license
Editable and sharable, adding new ones, modifying old ones as we need them.
The distinction isn't arbitary between Free Software and not. Anything which is a public resource, which we share and which we should be able to collaborate on, is something we need to license correctly. We haven't put any specifics on the forum yet asking posters to agree to licensing their posts, but if help pages here start becoming more verbose and less ephemeral then we will need to put something in place to keep the content in the commons.
Examples of things we can't touch, but would love to if only they were licensed correctly: Tav's book, many online tutorials, youtube videos, content on your old forum (and the other forum) etc. Lack of licensing actually makes collaboration a real risky business because while I may not sue for reuse of my unlicensed work, someone might. And the project can't take hits like that.
Would be nice if the controls (left, right, exit/close) were 2X larger. They are quite small on a 17" display and microscopic on a handheld device (phone).
Forum Testing testing lightbox
Inkscape.org
inserting an image and attaching an image for testing
Hhm, interesting that the images are placed before the text. That's probably not what most people will expect, although it's probably not a serious problem.
I'm not sure if I see a lightbox.... ?? When I click on the image, they show up in another page with a black background. Have to use browser Back button to go back and click on the other image
another quick test
Here's what I see when I click on the second image (my first attachment below). I see a black transparent overlay over the entire page (this is usually called a lightbox or a modal overlay) with the original picture at the center. I see left and right arrows and the X close button in the top right corner.
This is what happens when I click on any attached images.
Yes, I see that today. But I didn't see that when I tested a couple of days ago.
Also, the thumbnails are displayed differently today. 2 days ago, they had white or transparent background. Today they have a light blue/gray background. (That background might be coming from my system theme, I'm not sure. But it wasn't there a couple of days ago.)
Also, I don't see any full size image. Have we done away with that now?
Also, in the op, I originally had 2 images there, one attached, one inserted. For some reason, today, only one image is showing.
testing link feature
Unless I still don't understand, the link feature didn't work. Even though I was trying to insert an image, but have a link instead, it appears to have attached it. Either that's weird, or I still don't understand.
Yay, I'm glad the lightbox is working again!
The gray background behind the thumbnails is new, I added that a couple of days ago. It hovers orange, orange seems to be accent color on the website so I went with it. Styles can be changed of course, just let me know how to improve them.
I think the full size is still shown when only one image is attached, it may be overriding the link feature, I'm not sure. No it hasn't been scrapped, I just moved it to display below the text. Not as any suggestion, this is very much a WIP and I hope you (@brynn) have some time to untangle the attachments display issue.
That is why I asked for a discussion on GL, the whole attachment business seems confused. It's not just the discussions on GL, I also look at the code to try to understand what the end goal might be, but it's just more questions for me, especially in light of the discussions. I think Martin may have rushed to implement features to please the forum godesses, but I think a better description of what is needed should come first.
I understand there are some security things to consider when attaching images from external sources. They should definitely be downloaded to our server, if we are to implement that, and I think we may have that already. But it also makes sense to accept only the whitelisted services, the ones you listed in the Forum instructions.
I'm still not sure what the security constraints are, what were Martin's suggestions, it read much more like a discussion and not a firm boundary of what is not allowed. I wish Martin would come forth and clarify that :) But with my web dev experience images are not to be messed about when it comes to security, they are the easiest pathway to hackers.
If you mean the sites I listed in this message: https://inkscape.org/forums/questions/where-can-i-upload-my-files-or-images/ Those are not whitelisted at all. Only suggested.
I think the link feature does work. I think that blue Attachment button is the link. So now I just don't understand why the image is displayed too.
I posted my ideal image handling in the GL issue. https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape-web/issues/365#note_188041512
I know we're not whitelisting the external services yet, but your list is a great start.
Yes the links to files are shown as a dropdown under Attachments button. I think we need some more styles adjustments on that button.
Thank you @brynn for writing up your ideal case, that will resolve all that Attachments discussion :) I'll work on it tomorrow, then you can test and see if there is anything else that needs to be fixed before going live.
BTW I also favor the old animated smileys (as they were called in the olden days), Yahoo messenger had the best collection of the basic ones, and SmileyXtra project did the rest :)
Testing images upload
We can always replace or augment the emoji/emilies, but they have to be a) good looking (subjective I know), but more importantly b) open source/free culture licensed. Which is a harder ask and there are smaller selections to choose from. Some of them could be animated by our artists here though over time if that's what they want.
Martin. Would it be possible for us to draw our own emojis, after all, that's what we do, draw! May I suggest that down the road a bit when things settle, we do an emoji (animated and non animated) contest and pick emojis from those? We could do another contest to get personal badges too... (unsure of the real name, brynn's turtle for ex).
I think that's a great idea Dee.
We already use the website for contests, I wonder if it would be possible to express a contest into the forum so it looked nice.
Does that mean we could use the old fashion smileys too?
I don't think we could, because of their copyright.
I would only use those with licenses which allow it. All those hundreds of smileys I have on Inkscape Community are free to use! (You think I would use them against their license?)
If we use them I would suggest to post a message somewhere, crediting the artists. But they are all free to use without credit. As I've offered before, I would be glad to manage them for this forum.
It's not that they are free to use, it's that they have a definitate license (or public domain declaration) and a definable authorship. i.e. we went to this website, they said what the license was for their icon pack, it's a free culture license and we know they made the icons and didn't just copy them from other people. etc etc.
Unfortunatly "free to use" isn't a license, so it's not sufficient.
What's a suitable licence for the forum? Is it public domain only (CC0), or are other CC or Apache licences acceptable?
Mozilla had a bunch of emoji for their Firefox OS development that are Apache licenced. I think Google has emoji under something permissive too.
Most permissive and copyleft licenses are ok. As long as it's compatible with the website (AGPLv3) and isn't NC/ND and can be confirmed.
We're already using an emoji set from I think it's the OneEmoji set, so it's not too hard to replace. Although I think @brynn would like to use animated ones?
Well I could look up the licenses and show them to you. I have read them all! When I said "free to use" I was making a general statement, not quoting the specific licenses. I don't clearly understand....well I don't understand at all, what you're trying to say. Those smileys on Inkscape Community all came from their original artists' websites, where I read each and every license. And if you look around, you'll find the message where I credit all the artists (with links back to their websites). I did not just find them somewhere on the internet and steal them.
It's because I enjoy them so much, that I spent many hours searching and finding those which are legal to use, and organizing and managing them for Inkscape Community.
Some are and some aren't. Making animated emojis was part of the question here, and you said yes. So I thought it was worth asking (again).
Sorry @brynn I didn't intend to imputiate your good name. I was trying to make it clear that a legal use (here and on your forum) isn't sufficient. Because we need content that's not just usable, but editable, sharable and etc. It's a specificy which isn't common to most website projects, but Free Software projects have to be more attentive to the exact licenses to make sure it's all compatible.
I don't understand why smileys would need to be editable. They aren't used in the context of being editable or sharable. (No one expects them to be. I've never heard of anyone wanting them to be.) They're just not used in that context. They're used as a supplement to the text. I think that might be taking the free software concept a little too far.
Let's see, can I grab your profile picture and edit it? If that needs to be editable, we should probably say so on the setting page, because I don't intend for mine to be up for grabs. What about the font? I'm not sure if I could even identify which font I see here, much less figure out if I'm allowed to edit it. But where do we draw the line? What about attachments? Are we only supposed to upload images that anyone can take and use?
I don't get the point of following a concept beyond logical use or needs.
It would become part of the website code. And the website code needs to use a license that allows editing and sharing. Else we cannot publish it in the website's code repository.
We can use your two examples as a good basis for an explaination:
The Font (e.g. EuphoriaScript)
The Avatar
Emoji Icons
The distinction isn't arbitary between Free Software and not. Anything which is a public resource, which we share and which we should be able to collaborate on, is something we need to license correctly. We haven't put any specifics on the forum yet asking posters to agree to licensing their posts, but if help pages here start becoming more verbose and less ephemeral then we will need to put something in place to keep the content in the commons.
Examples of things we can't touch, but would love to if only they were licensed correctly: Tav's book, many online tutorials, youtube videos, content on your old forum (and the other forum) etc. Lack of licensing actually makes collaboration a real risky business because while I may not sue for reuse of my unlicensed work, someone might. And the project can't take hits like that.
RE Lightbox:
Would be nice if the controls (left, right, exit/close) were 2X larger. They are quite small on a 17" display and microscopic on a handheld device (phone).
Thanks,
TD