Conversation
|
I am against the idea of adding an extra toggle for this.. If one even has a reason to want to turn them off, then the effect is already too aggressive. Instead, this should tie into power saving probably |
|
@p2r3 said to add a toggle for it, but i can easily merge it with the other one if needed |
|
There's no reason not to give people this customization option, especially not if it's out of principle. It doesn't cost us anything to add an extra toggle. |
|
I agree with pancake here. There shouldn't be any reason for people to want to disable this, other than potentially power savings. The only thing we're gonna achieve by adding a toggle is making the site more cluttered. |
|
The clutter in question is a thin toggle at the bottom of the page, but I yield. If it's 2 to 1, then do just rename the existing toggle and bundle this with it. |
|
We can also make a dropdown at the bottom, so its a text called settings and clicking it makes all settings pop out and back in, in case we add more later, although this isn't necessary for the time being |
| * @param {HTMLElement} element | ||
| * @returns {boolean} | ||
| */ | ||
| function elementFilter(element){ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Style nitpick - this code base typically adds a space between the function name and the brackets.
| function elementFilter(element){ | ||
| let ret = true; | ||
| ret = ret && element | ||
| ret = ret && !element.classList.contains('nofade'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Style nitpick - this code base avoids single tick quotes for strings whenever possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove and use existing toggle as discussed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So i should add this to the powersaving?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, and rename the toggle. As discussed.
|
stale? |
|
Cant work on this atm |
4 participants
I fixed the visual bugs mentioned by rudko and also added a toggle at the bottom