?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Suggestions Box
Want to improve LiveJournal? Contribute your ideas!
30th November 2007 

Title
Fix Comments Q[uotation] CSS Bug

Short, concise description of the idea
Remove the font-variant specification in whatever CSS determines the default rendering of Q[uotation] elements in comments.

Full description of the idea
The CSS for LJ comments sets the font-style within Q[uotation] elements to italic. (Somewhere, things read "q { [...] font-style: italic; [...]}".) This makes a quotation seem emphasized when it is not. Worse, child EM[phasized] elements are left with italic font-style, so that emphasis within quotations is lost. Only those with a knowledge of CSS can do a proper work-around.

The proper fix is to remove the explicit reference to font-style in your CSS, and to let quotation elements simply inherit their font-style from parent elements.

(Please note that Q elements are not automatically italicized in main entries, though they are in comments. I infer that the relevant CSS is for a Q element as a child element.)

An ordered list of benefits
  • Quotation elements not intended to be emphasized will not appear emphasized.
  • Intended emphasis within quotation elements will render distinctly.
  • Users will not be discouraged from using Q elements as opposed to literal quotation marks of some sort.
An ordered list of problems/issues involved
  • The strange desire of whomever set "font-style: italic;" will no longer be satisfied.
well-behaved women never make history

Title
Change text for Adult Concepts cut-tag

Short, concise description of the idea
The Adult Concepts cut-tag seems to imply that there are items behind the cut that aren't suitable for minors, and should be changed to reflect that people who rate their content "Adult Concepts" feel their material may include mature themes inappropriate for younger children.

Full description of the idea
The current Adult Concepts cut tag says "You are about to view content which may not be appropriate for minors." Minors in most places meaning anyone under 18, and being a legal term which implies Adult Concepts content is probably going to be pornographic or in some other way unsuitable for minors. A better wording would be something along the lines of "You are about to view content containing mature themes which may not be appropriate for younger children." Or even "for all readers." This is more similar to the PG-13 rating or the Mature Audiences TV warning, which I think Adult Concepts is intended to emulate.

I would like to use the Adult Concepts rating for some of my content, but I feel that if that cut-tag appears on every post, people are going to think that the content is porn (it's usually one of the following--war stories, romance with bits no more explicit than you can find on the shelves of a fantasy book in a store, or discussion of violence and abuse) and unless that's what they WANT, they'll just hit the back button.

I want people who see my content rated Adult Concepts to think... "Hm, maybe this is going to be like a PG-13 or an R rated movie, or like a war story."

An ordered list of benefits
  • * It would be a more accurate description of content rated "Adult Concepts" especially since 14-17 year olds are minors and they are allowed to see it.
  • * It would help people who are looking for porn and people who are trying to avoid porn to find what they really want.
An ordered list of problems/issues involved
  • * It would require some coding time.
calm

Title
Increasing (or removing) the tag limit

Short, concise description of the idea
Tag limit is, amazingly enough, too low.

Full description of the idea
A community I moderate that makes extensive use of tags has discovered that there is a 1000 tag limit. We use tags mostly for bands, and of course as anyone who listens to music can tell you, there are thousands of bands, even if you stick to one genre like we do (metal, in our case.) As our community grows, the need for new band tags increases, especially as we discover more obscure bands. An increase in the limit, to potentially 2000 or higher, 5000 seeming like the "safest" number- or the removal of the limit altogether- would prevent us from having to use temporary or otherwise less-than-ideal solutions.

An ordered list of benefits
  • Users and communities that use tags a lot would not suddenly discover themselves out of tags and having to make room for new ones by deleting old ones.
An ordered list of problems/issues involved
  • With a set limit of even 5000, sooner or later someone's going to reach that limit and then they would have a problem just like we do now.
  • With the increased/removed limit, databases may have trouble keeping up- but then again, that's entirely dependant on if there's a lot of people and communities using THAT many tags.
This page was loaded Nov 20th 2019, 10:28 pm GMT.