[RFC] user signature modifications for posts

[EXreaction]

Actually, I think that would be better off as part of the core rather than as an extension if done at all. I do not think that the audience for installing the extension where users would want it most are aligned with administrator's preferences (if administrators want to allow large signatures, I do not think it likely that they would install (or look for) an extension allowing users to disable it on a user by user basis).

On the other hand, it does not seem like it is something we should add a bunch of code for and another query for, so perhaps using a bit of javascript and client side storage would be the best idea for a user by user basis.

[brunoais]

On the other hand, it does not seem like it is something we should add a bunch of code for and another query for, so perhaps using a bit of javascript and client side storage would be the best idea for a user by user basis.

Sounds like a good approach, for me!

[Ger]

so perhaps using a bit of javascript and client side storage would be the best idea for a user by user basis.

IIRC, this is the way IPB does it. However, they come with a bunch of settings for each user group whether or not they can hide signatures of other users and whether or not their signatures can be hidden by others. UI is pretty simple; an X in the upper right corner of the signature div that appears when you hover it.

On a personal note: I don't find it very useful and I'm +1 on DavidIQ:

Sorry but I completely disagree with the idea as signatures will then become that much less useful. If you don't like long signatures then don't allow them. If you don't like big pictures in signatures then don't allow those.

[brunoais]

On a personal note: I don't find it very useful and I'm +1 on DavidIQ:

Sorry but I completely disagree with the idea as signatures will then become that much less useful. If you don't like long signatures then don't allow them. If you don't like big pictures in signatures then don't allow those.

That's set using the ACP, right?
How about if only a small significant subset of the users don't like that kind of signatures but other like 'em? Doesn't it sound a better use case for this kind of thing?

[Ger]

I can imagine the use case. But in my opinion, on serious boards with focus on informative content, you don't want distracting signatures anyway, so you'd disable it with the mentioned settings in ACP. However, in -how do I say this- more social aimed, pub-like boards, it doesn't really matter for the board as a whole. Of course some users might still want to hide the signatures, they can disable the display of those in the UCP (board preferences -> display options). And of course, someone might want to hide some signatures but keep some other signatures and only in that case, this RFC comes in handy. But than I think:

it does not seem like it is something we should add a bunch of code for and another query for

[brunoais]

Since when we need an extra query to the DB for that (if we do using js)?

[Ger]

When we're only using JS it wouldn't. I assumed you meant to use a server sided approach (storing the preference for each signature and each user in the DB and determine whether or not to load the sig for the viewing user).

[brunoais]

No... I meant a js only approach. This is not required to use the forums. It's just a fancy thing, so js alone is perfectly ok, IMO.
Just use the storage interface or cookies to store... Simple as that.

[DavidIQ]

On a personal note: I don't find it very useful and I'm +1 on DavidIQ:

Sorry but I completely disagree with the idea as signatures will then become that much less useful. If you don't like long signatures then don't allow them. If you don't like big pictures in signatures then don't allow those.

That's set using the ACP, right?
How about if only a small significant subset of the users don't like that kind of signatures but other like 'em? Doesn't it sound a better use case for this kind of thing?

No, those settings are in the ACP. The forum admin is who decides what he wants to allow for signatures and what he doesn't. The user obviously shouldn't be in control of that.

No... I meant a js only approach. This is not required to use the forums. It's just a fancy thing, so js alone is perfectly ok, IMO.
Just use the storage interface or cookies to store... Simple as that.

Not sure how I feel about that. There are so many people that have issues with cookie and a certain EU cookie law that comes to mind...

[Ger]

There are so many people that have issues with cookie and a certain EU cookie law that comes to mind...

Functional cookies are allowed. Besides: how does it differ from login cookies etc.? These cookies don't need any private data, simply a comma separated list of user_id which signatures should be hidden would suffice. All signatures of user_id's in that list should get the display:none property.

However: I can imagine a big slowdown when a frequent user keeps adding more and more user_id's to that list. With only a handful it wouldn't matter, but with hundreds or maybe even thousands user_id's to search through with JS I think some browsers will have a hard time. That could potentially result in bad user experience.