• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

XF 1.5 Is it possible to view inline images in the edit window?

#1
Trying to fine-tune posts that contain images in the post is a PITA. Is it possible to view the actual images/thumbnails in the editor window?
The fact that SOME of them are visible when CREATING a post but only the links are visible while editing an existing post leads me to believe it might be possible. But I haven't been able to figure out how.
 
#3
Thank you, I'll check it out. But I don't know enough about how our attachments are actually stored to be sure it will work for us. I've asked a more experienced admin to see if he thinks it will work.
Is there something I can do MYSELF to determine whether it will work? I know they're stored locally rather than using an external CDN, but that's really about ALL I know about it.
 
#4
Maybe I'm not asking the question in the RIGHT way. My problem is with the editor itself, and how it handles BB Codes. So I'm going to try to restate my problem:

The editor has 2 modes:
"Rich Text" to display what the post will LOOK like.
"BB Code" to display the codes and text that create the post. If I WANT to see/edit the BB Codes, I can select BB Code mode.

In "Rich Text" mode, it's supposed to visibly display the text and the RESULTS of the BB Codes - and does so for font, color, indent, bold, etc. codes. So the effect is WYSIWYG for THOSE codes.
But "Rich Text" mode does NOT display the RESULTS of QUOTE or ATTACH codes - it displays the BB Codes themselves even though I'm NOT in BB Code mode.
SOME codes are WYSIWYG and other codes are not. So "Rich Text" mode is only sorta-kinda-almost WYSIWYG. It's obviously POSSIBLE to display the photos in the edit window - it DOES display them when creating a new post, but doesn't display them when editing an existing post.

If I want to see what the post will REALLY look like, the only way to actually SEE the post is to submit it. "Preview" doesn't even display it EXACTLY like it will appear when submitted. And then I have to edit..submit..edit..submit..edit..submit until it eventually looks right.
This makes creating and fine-tuning tutorials or demos that include illustrations MUCH more difficult than it needs to be.
 
Last edited:
#6
To change the current default behaviour will require custom development.
Thanks, but I don't understand why that's true. Is there some logical, functional reason that message board editors shouldn't or can't be FULLY WYSISYG? I built my first computer in 1976 & I've been working with PC's for 40 years - since before they were even called "PC"s. When RAM was $135/MB & HDs were $10+/MB, WYSIWYG was impossible. Now it can be done for peanuts. I've worked with dozens of different editors over the years & watched them develop from text only editors on serial terminals to GUI's. From EdLin to WordStar to Word, etc. The standards that have been developed over the years are a VERY GOOD thing. Why don't the people who develop message board editors follow those conventions/standards more closely? Do they not KNOW those conventions? Do they not care? Or are they just lazy, wanting the most buck$ for the least bang?

I'm NOT looking for a Desktop Publishing quality editor with tons of bells & whistles that would be absolutely useless on a message board. I just want a basic editor that works transparently, displays a reasonable approximation of what the post will actually look like whether I'm creating a new post or editing an existing one, and uses the techniques that nearly every PC user has almost unconsciously absorbed over the years. Users shouldn't need to learn new tricks & work-arounds to make their posts look like they weren't created by a 7-year-old. It should "just work" - and no, I'm NOT an Apple. I'm just picky!