New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CW should include the image, too #1010

Closed
riking opened this Issue Apr 5, 2017 · 44 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@riking

riking commented Apr 5, 2017

Follow-up to #239 and #460:

Statuses with a content warning should hide & show the image along with the text.

  • I looked through the JS code for a quick fix and did not find one

The CW is handled in StatusContent, while click-to-view images are handled in MediaGallery, and the two components are separated from each other: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/07b166a/app/assets/javascripts/components/components/status.jsx#L100-L102


  • I searched or browsed the repo’s other issues to ensure this is not a duplicate.
@nevillepark

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

nevillepark commented Apr 9, 2017

See also #715

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

ghost commented Apr 9, 2017

Agreed. Content warnings should apply to all content, text, images, and @ usernames.

As it is now, images need to be marked separately, and @ usernames are shown even when they're part of the hidden content (they should only show if they're at the very start to indicate a reply).

I understand there may be technical or historical reasons for the way things work now, but from a user POV it's just counter-intuitive.

@blinry

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

blinry commented Apr 12, 2017

I think this is really unexpected behaviour at the moment. If I want to post a picture of a spider, naturally I'd add a CW "spider", and expect the image to be hidden.

@lifning

This comment has been minimized.

lifning commented Apr 15, 2017

Yep. I've seen several people in the timelines now who clearly intended to hide an image with it, not realizing that it's a separate tag on the image upload itself, and so the thing they wanted to put a warning on is plainly visible, and some innocuous, incidental text got hidden instead.

Could at least automatically set the NSFW flag, if that would be an easy enough quick fix.

@blinry

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

blinry commented Apr 20, 2017

So, do we have a consensus that in a CW-labelled toot, all other contents (like images and mentions) should be hidden? :) Would be willing to whip together a PR.

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented Apr 20, 2017

@blinry I've seen someone on Mastodon saying that there is a case for keeping it the way it is: it's handy for hiding the URL of an image if you want to show the image and the comment but not the URL. Sort of a way to tidy it up.

However, I've also seen a post that says you can upload an image and then delete the image URL from the toot and the image stays attached to the toot. So that would cancel it out!

*tests it*

Yep, the image stays attached to the toot even if you remove the image URL from the toot. So yes, aside from that I've never seen an argument against putting the attached images behind the CW.

@riking

This comment has been minimized.

riking commented Apr 23, 2017

@Cassolotl that breaks federation, though - the image doesn't show up when the post is pulled.

Also, that ""use-case"" is a stupid trick to get around an oddity of the software. That's not really something worth preserving.

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented Apr 23, 2017

@riking

that breaks federation, though - the image doesn't show up when the post is pulled.

Ahhh, I didn't know that.

Also, that ""use-case"" is a stupid trick to get around an oddity of the software. That's not really something worth preserving.

Wow, that's super rude. But also, if people are using it that way then people are using it that way and they're not going to stop or not be disappointed just because you said they're stupid.

@lifning

This comment has been minimized.

lifning commented Apr 23, 2017

(the impression I got was that "stupid" was meant to be "the software uses this stupid trick to work around image attachments not federating, where it falls back on the arbitrary URL thumbnailer for other instances but on the local instance it behaves differently" and not "the people who discovered and used this quirk are stupid." At least, it mirrors how I typically call my own code stupid 😉)

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented Apr 23, 2017

(Oh okay, that's not so bad...! If that is the case, I'm sorry @riking!)

@nightpool

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

nightpool commented Apr 23, 2017

@lifning

This comment has been minimized.

lifning commented Apr 23, 2017

If someone is avoiding a subject to avoid mental health repercussions, what's the likelihood they want to see an attention grabbing image about that subject?

In any case, adding a CW should default the image to NSFW-hidden, leaving the option available to un-hide it for non-semantic use of the feature like the ones you describe there.

@nightpool

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

nightpool commented Apr 23, 2017

@lifning

This comment has been minimized.

lifning commented Apr 23, 2017

I get that. That would be using the "content warning" feature for something other than a warning, right? The feature should work best for its intended case, and incidental usage for other purposes shouldn't force it to stay broken.

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented Apr 23, 2017

@nightpool Thank you, I couldn't remember who it was! I'm glad you noticed and chipped in better than I could.

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented Apr 23, 2017

@lifning Or it could be redesigned somehow to serve both purposes.

@nightpool

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

nightpool commented Apr 23, 2017

@lifning It's hard to talk about the "intended purpose" of software separate from the behaviors it affords. In this case, we have two affordances, one for hiding text, and one for hiding images. I strongly believe the software should afford both of these use-cases equally. If you think that hiding both is a more compelling use case and we should get rid of the affordances for hiding either individually, then it's fine to disagree with me on that.

I think that there are a lot of use-cases for "content warnings" that include hiding the two separately—it's not inherent that it's using the affordance for something other then a warning. I think that hiding both would add a very awkward limitation. You also have to think about people who want to hide images but don't need to hide their text (which is honestly 90% of hidden images i've seen on mastodon).

@ccoenen

This comment has been minimized.

ccoenen commented Apr 27, 2017

There needs to be a way to put media behind content warning. Having seperate buttons will probably confuse users (or will at least make it complicated from a UI standpoint). IMO Content warning tweets should just display the content warning by default. Everything else (including media) should be hidden until i've manually selected them to show.

@blinry

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

blinry commented Apr 27, 2017

My user story goes like this: The user wants to discuss spiders. They write something about a spider species, and add an image. Then they think: "Oh wait, some people are scared of spiders, I should add a CW!" They click the CW button, type "spiders" into the text box, and click "Toot".

Result: Many disturbed arachnophobes.

The interface should make it perfectly clear what is hidden and what is not. If the CW feature is intended to be used as a content warning, it should hide all images as well, always. If people want to use it for different purposes, it should be renamed to "hide text" or something like that.

@ccoenen

This comment has been minimized.

ccoenen commented Apr 27, 2017

What I was also trying to convey: We're not going to attract a lot of users, if posting a toot involves a detailed study of fifteen UI elements. Less, in this case, certainly is more. I do not want to have too many options. I am very explicitly against configuring a toot seperately from its related media.

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented Apr 27, 2017

Yeah okay, my mind is changed, I think the CW should hide the media in all cases.

rtucker added a commit to vulpineclub/mastodon that referenced this issue Apr 30, 2017

status: if spoiler_text is present, treat media as sensitive (tootsui…
…te#1010)

In the event that there is a CW, go ahead and treat any
attached media as sensitive.

rtucker added a commit to vulpineclub/mastodon that referenced this issue Apr 30, 2017

status: if spoiler_text is present, treat media as sensitive (tootsui…
…te#1010)

In the event that there is a CW, go ahead and treat any
attached media as sensitive.

rtucker added a commit to vulpineclub/mastodon that referenced this issue Apr 30, 2017

status: if spoiler_text is present, treat media as sensitive (tootsui…
…te#1010)

In the event that there is a CW, go ahead and treat any
attached media as sensitive.
@beatrix-bitrot

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

beatrix-bitrot commented May 9, 2017

a suggestion was provided by @hoodiek and it is as follows:

clicking the CW option would have options appear beneath toot button, checkboxes that both default to on for "hide image" and "hide text"

this is my favourite proposal so far. what do y'all think?

rtucker added a commit to vulpineclub/mastodon that referenced this issue May 14, 2017

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented May 23, 2017

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented May 25, 2017

I'm gonna try to combine all the views in one post here, so that there's a summary of the overall feel of the thread - it's a bit all over the place in parts, slightly my fault there.

If I've miscategorised anyone let me know and I'll rearrange!

CW hides images in all cases - 19x 👍, 4x ❤

  • ccoenen (3x thumbs-up and then another post with 4x thumbs-up)
  • blinry (x4 thumbs-up)
  • cassolotl (5x thumbs-up, 4x heart)
  • cassolotl's mock-up (3x thumbs-up)

CW should include image (unspecified) - 11x👍, 2x❤

  • Original post, 11 thumbs-up, 0 thumbs down.
  • Kimik0
  • blinry
  • lifning (1x heart)
  • blinry can do a PR (1x heart)

CW and NSFW are the wrong terms/symbols - 1x 🎉

  • ccoenen (1x party thing)

CW default-hides images, which can be unhidden - 2x 👍, 1x 👎

  • lifning (1x thumbs-up)
  • nightpool
  • stephenburgess8 (1x thumbs-up, 1x thumbs-down)

Text and media above the line are visible, below the line are not visible

  • fsnk

Something complex that I can't really understand

  • rtucker

CW makes two checkboxes appear: text, media - 1x 👎

  • beatrix-bitrot (1x thumbs-down)
  • hoodiek
@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

ghost commented May 25, 2017

I think the idea @fsnk mentioned at the end of their post was good.

When a CW is used in a toot, it appears as "text [button] more text", where the "more text" part is hidden until the button is clicked. There's no indication that the text before the button is different from the text after it. And users don't expect it to be different, as seen for example in #699. Only when composing a toot or looking at the source code/API is it apparent that the software treats them as separate things.

If we look at a CW not as a thing separate from the rest of the toot but instead as a separator within the toot, it matches what is seen on screen, and the behavior that users expect, i.e. stuff before the separator is shown, stuff after it is hidden. On LiveJournal and some other forums such a things is called a "cut".

This also removes the confusion over which/why images are hidden or not, and allows the people who said they want to treat text and images separately to do so.

Seems like a good solution, no?
Only problem is that the software and API would need changed a bit to accomodate this, so the programmers will probably veto it right away :(

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented May 26, 2017

Yeah, I suspect you're right that it's not possible without a radical redesign, though I don't understand the subject enough to explain why!

@Cassolotl Cassolotl referenced this issue Jun 5, 2017

Closed

Type toots using speech recognition #3457

0 of 2 tasks complete

@ghost ghost referenced this issue Jun 22, 2017

Closed

Nested CWs. #3899

1 of 2 tasks complete

@Cassolotl Cassolotl referenced this issue Jun 23, 2017

Open

An icon for “Content warning” #1249

0 of 1 task complete
@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented Jun 27, 2017

This is marked "high priority" and "help wanted" (awesome, by the way! Thanks!), but there's no clear guidance from any lead devs what they've decided is best and what they want people to help them code.

Could someone (@Gargron? @wxcafe?) appear majestically and describe what exactly the plan is? This thread is very confused and disjointed, and I can imagine any contributors coming to it for the first time looking to help out in a big way might be confused about what they're meant to be doing!

@wxcafe

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

wxcafe commented Jun 27, 2017

I'm not a lead dev (in fact, I'm not a dev at all, I just try to help out on issues, PRs and docs).

I'm going to first describe what my opinion is, and second describe what I've understood the plan is for this.

I believe CWs definitely should include images. Images are content too, there's almost no valid use-case for people to CW the content but not the image or vice-versa, and it's really confusing to new users. If anything, having a CW button that makes checked checkboxes appear for 'text' and 'images' is a good solution.

Now, I think @Gargron doesn't agree with this, and there's internal discussion about this between people who work on Mastodon. Afaict there hasn't been a firm decision taken yet.

My conclusion here being : Gargamel pls fix the cw-jos. pls.

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented Jun 27, 2017

@wxcafe Thank you, that is very helpful!

@Cassolotl

This comment has been minimized.

Cassolotl commented Jul 4, 2017

There's a pull request here, which currently results in...

01

02

@eevee

This comment has been minimized.

eevee commented Jul 6, 2017

Hey I'm pretty good at computer and I just accidentally broadcast some comically obscene cartoon smut to the main instance's public timeline, and may not have deleted it had I not thought to double-check how it looked in a logged-out browser. So, you know, FYI.

@Gargron

This comment has been minimized.

Member

Gargron commented Jul 6, 2017

I'm veering towards making a present spoiler_text enforce a true sensitive, and unifying "show more" and "show sensitive media" into a single toggleable state

@yvolk

This comment has been minimized.

yvolk commented Jul 11, 2017

I think that the main problem here is to separate two different use cases:

  1. A toot has a Content Warning.
  2. A toot has a Title.

As Mastodon toot didn't have any other "Title" except "Content Warning" users naturally started to use it as a convenient way to create "a spoiler" for any toot. Hiding both text and image(s) is natural for a general purpose spoiler also.

Please note that usage of a "general purpose title" not necessarily requires hiding a text. On the contrary, CW does require this hiding...

@ccoenen

This comment has been minimized.

ccoenen commented Jul 11, 2017

Well, it's not a title, it's a content warning. If people collectively demand a title, this could be added. But this would be a different discussion, in my opinion.

@wxcafe

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

wxcafe commented Jul 11, 2017

Yeah, agreed. Using the CWs as a title is not intended behavior and while it's something that might be cool for users, it's not the use we want to prioritize here. Plus hiding the images doesn't change much in that use case: your title is still visible to people viewing your post and still conveys an idea of the content, and the button still says "show more".

@yvolk

This comment has been minimized.

yvolk commented Jul 11, 2017

@ccoenen @wxcafe I understand that "title" is a different thing. For developers :-)
But ordinary users use the system as they like, not necessarily as you envisioned. Such users think: "Why not use "CW" as a general purpose title?!" I guess this is why so many opinions are expressed in this and related issues...

@ccoenen

This comment has been minimized.

ccoenen commented Jul 11, 2017

I am not at all against a title. But if one is desired, then let's give them one. A real one. So they don't have to resort to workarounds. Can we please leave this branch of the discussion? This is not getting us anywhere.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment