Ah, a vote for “it’s better this way”. Why do you prefer pure text? Is it because of the danger of being overrun with cat pictures and blinking gif smileys?
Let’s take that particular image. It covers a huge block that could have been filled by text otherwise and conveys relatively little information accurately. It distrupts my reading completely for a little while and getting back to the nice flow takes cognitive effort.
This moment I’m reading on my phone and the image fills the whole screen.
It is because text can be copy-pasted and composed easily since browsers mostly allow selecting any text (this is more difficult in win apps).
Whereas images cannot be copy pasted as simple (mostly you have to find the URL and copy paste that) and images cannot be composed easily at all (you at least need some pic editor which often doesn’t allow simple copy-paste).
This is the old problem that there is no graphical language. A problem that has evadad GUI designers since the beginning.
Um. In Firefox, right-click on the image, select Copy Image. Looks pretty simple to me. Pretty sure it works the same way in Chrome as well.
This is the old problem that there is no graphical language.
I think you’re missing the point of images. Their advantage is precisely that they are holistic, a gestalt—you’re supposed to take them in whole and not decompose them into elements.
Sure, if you want to construct a sequential narrative out of symbols, images are the wrong medium.
Um. In Firefox, right-click on the image, select Copy Image.
And how do you insert it into a comment?
I think you’re missing the point of images. Their advantage is precisely that they are holistic, a gestalt—you’re supposed to take them in whole and not decompose them into elements.
I think most people are unaware that they can include images in comments.
A state of affairs which I hope continues.
Ah, a vote for “it’s better this way”. Why do you prefer pure text? Is it because of the danger of being overrun with cat pictures and blinking gif smileys?
Let’s take that particular image. It covers a huge block that could have been filled by text otherwise and conveys relatively little information accurately. It distrupts my reading completely for a little while and getting back to the nice flow takes cognitive effort.
This moment I’m reading on my phone and the image fills the whole screen.
It is because text can be copy-pasted and composed easily since browsers mostly allow selecting any text (this is more difficult in win apps).
Whereas images cannot be copy pasted as simple (mostly you have to find the URL and copy paste that) and images cannot be composed easily at all (you at least need some pic editor which often doesn’t allow simple copy-paste).
This is the old problem that there is no graphical language. A problem that has evadad GUI designers since the beginning.
Um. In Firefox, right-click on the image, select Copy Image. Looks pretty simple to me. Pretty sure it works the same way in Chrome as well.
I think you’re missing the point of images. Their advantage is precisely that they are holistic, a gestalt—you’re supposed to take them in whole and not decompose them into elements.
Sure, if you want to construct a sequential narrative out of symbols, images are the wrong medium.
And how do you insert it into a comment?
That may be true of some images but not all.