* David Gerard wrote: >Not sure the blurring system would do the job for a workplace. At a >distance, the blurred penis still looks exactly like a penis ...
There are many alternatives to a blur effect. A much simpler effect would be a Small Images option that shrinks all images to icon size. The information you get is about the same as with a blur effect, but the images would be even easier to ignore and couldn't be recognized at a distance. There would be problems with maps as the point over- lay depends on the size, but that should not be that hard to fix. It would also match what I do when I am unsure whether I am about to load some web page which I am not sure I want to see the images on, I tell my browser to zoom out, load the page, and then decide whether it's okay to zoom in, or if I should go View -> Images -> No Images, or close the page or whatever. It's interesting to note that advocates of discriminatory schemes do not discuss, as far as I am aware, how to communicate the tagging of some images as somehow controversial to users who do not filter. I'd wonder how they feel about adding some notice like "Seeing this image makes some people feel bad" to the image caption for all images that would be filtered by one of the discriminatory filter options. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l