Firefox Nuisance No. 45.392:

Mouseover "tags" (explanatory text which appears when pointer is left
over an image) get truncated if too long (",,,"), which is very
annoying when the "tag" (or whatever it's properly called) is an
integral part of understanding the visuals, as here at
<http://www.slate.com/id/2139195/entry/2139202/>.


WHY OH WHY DO YOU DO THIS, FIREFOX??????

Gudmund Areskoug wrote:
>
>
> It does look irritating, and I hope there's some setting to change it
> (doubt it, though).

But why would anyone do this??? How extremely annoying computer
programmers can be! I wonder what is the culture there which makes for
such things.

> Workaround: right-click in the image, Properties, maximize the resulting
> window, then you can read the whole "ABC News reported that Sheikh
> Mohammed was "begging to confess" after about two minutes of
> waterboarding." or whichever text there is.

RIght, that too.

> BTW: you're sure to get chided for crossposting - to a host of different
> fora. I noticed it when I wanted to send this reply. Don't cross-post
> like this if you want to be taken seriously and get answers, please.

I've reinstated the original NGs x-posted since your response contains
something of a solution to the problem so widely posted.

As for widely posting, well, the bigger the Net the better -- pun
intended! Also -- precisely because -- the NGs are all related...so, a
bigger net and all....


> BR,
> Gudmund

I hope you're not one of them whiners about top-posting, either, or
typos, or "minimalist redaction" or stream-of-consciousness free
association or not being politically correct enough or expressing
strong opinions strongly....

Ken Wagner wrote:
>
>
> Interesting, but I don't get a truncated Alt text there (FF 1.5.0.2). I
> see the entire "waterboarding" sentence.

?!?!??!?!!!!!

HOW COULD THIS BE????

I HATE COMPUTERS!!!!!

There's nothing so terrible as unrequited love...except for illogical
(seeming) machines (and software)!!!!

> The cross-posting has already been mentioned, but just out of curiosity,
> why was your message sent to the
> microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser group? It may not
> have been your intent, but it sure looks like at an attempt at baiting
> an anti-Firefox crowd when you post a FF "nuisance" in a competing
> browser's forum. It would be a little like posting an IE complaint in
> this forum...

Well, it would have been intersting to see what responses the
anti-Firefox/Mozilla crowd might have, but also because there may be
issues common to html browsers involved in this case -- especially
because many people use both, like me.

I prefer Firefox, but increasingly its only advantage seems to be
tabbed browsing and a more intuitive text-scaling capability.

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Firefox Nuisance No. 45.392:
>
> Mouseover "tags" (explanatory text which appears when pointer is left
> over an image) get truncated if too long (",,,"), which is very
> annoying when the "tag" (or whatever it's properly called) is an
> integral part of understanding the visuals, as here at
> <http://www.slate.com/id/2139195/entry/2139202/>.
>
>
> WHY OH WHY DO YOU DO THIS, FIREFOX??????

The mousover tags were definitely not meant to hold that much
information. That should be in the captions or somewhere around the
image.

If the tag is an "integral part of understanding the visuals", that is
bad HTML practice; consider telling the webmaster to change it.

Dustan wrote:
>
>
> The mousover tags were definitely not meant to hold that much
> information. That should be in the captions or somewhere around the
> image.
>
> If the tag is an "integral part of understanding the visuals", that is
> bad HTML practice; consider telling the webmaster to change it.


You have a point there, but by the same token, the internet was never
meant to be what it is today...so expanding the envelope of what's
possible by utilizing what's available seems to be what our Brave New
World is all about, and considering this, it seems the worse practice,
even given HTML X.x parameters, to inherently (from the get-go) limit
capabilities...the design philosophy should always be: allow the user
to define the scope of information available. (I'm still shaking my
head over Y2K...ironic the lack of foresight, given the foresight
generally needed for computer programming.)

After all, "information wants to be free." =)