Talk:Blink element

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Article name (Blink tag)[edit]

This article should more properly be called "Blink element type". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.194.223 (talkcontribs) 20 September 2005

Technically, I suppose, but it's probably more famous (infamous) as simply the "blink tag." Move and leave redirect?--Mxg75 19:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I've moved it to Blink element for correct terminology and in line with the naming of articles such as Meta element. Blink tag and Blink element type redirect here. --Safalra 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No examples?[edit]

An entry about the blink tag, yet no examples of it? Kind of funny, eh? --24.249.108.133 00:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There was one, but it was removed with this edit, under the rationale that it wouldn't work in some browsers. -Amake 01:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, it isn't supported by Internet Explorer, which is still the most common browser. If an example of what blinking text looks like is really required it should be done with an image, but adding blinking content to pages is still a really bad idea. The article contains an example of the source code needed to produce blinking text, and if a reader really needs to see it in action they can paste it into a page to try it out. —Safalra 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because some browsers don't support images (or certain types of images) doesn't mean we remove images from pages. I realize that category is the minority, but the basic principle still stands. It doesn't detriment the majority of users to have an example, and it can benefit the remainder. I'm not opposed to having an animated image rather than the code, but I don't think that IE not supporting it is a reason to exclude anything. Also, I think it's unreasonable to expect a user to paste the code into a page, especially because the standard code doesn't work in Wikipedia anyway. If a small bit of flashing text is so obtrusive people don't want it on the page, we could add a hide/show button to it. Vicarious (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Browser support is taken into account in Wikipedia — it's why all images uploaded as SVG are converted to PNG for display in articles; for example, all of the images in the SVG article are actually all PNG files generated from the original uploaded SVG. I think perhaps this blinking text issue should be brought up on the talk page for Wikipedia:Accessibility. —Safalra (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps link to an example somewhere in this article, so it is not forced upon users? An image can be linked by putting colon after the left two brackets - like [[:Image:Onslow.jpg]] produces Image:Onslow.jpg. The description can be made better using a piped link. Graham87 04:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the joys of collaboration. A much better idea than mine, Graham, thanks! l'aqúatique talktome 05:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes- I was just thinking we need an example here. If some can't see it blink, it won't matter in fact it will illustrate the article's statement that it doesn't do it in Internet Explorer. A lot more people use firefox now than in the past. As to intruding itself on the reader, it's not porn or anything lol, I will make an understated one, and try and make it as unannoying as possible.Merkinsmum 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sigh I would have made one but I don't think I'm allowed- is it really banned for one word, I wanted to use [1] and no, one word can't cause seizures lol:) I'm going to place a link somewhere here.Merkinsmum 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed to only link it? User:Mstuomel has added an example straight to the page. Did I miss something or did he just not read our ongoing conversation? l'aqùatique talk 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Image or caption[edit]

The caption of the image on the page says "An illustration of the <blink> element in action", however, the <blink> tag is showing in the image, so the either the image is wrong or the caption is wrong. I know it is intended to be a joke, but I think Wikipedia should be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.133.1 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Image Removed[edit]

Our own sources say that the image could cause seizures, so I've removed it. The fact it's incorrect is just another reason it never should have been in the article in the first place. —chbarts (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No worry of seizures[edit]

Most implementations of the blink tag only flash it between 1-2 Hz. It has been statistically proven that this does not cause seizures except in the severely epileptic. It's not like you don't already have a seizure inducing image. Here is an example of a blinking text image that you could add (I donate it to the public domain): http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/2291/blinkingtext.gif 184.100.14.144 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So it doesn't cause seizures except when it does? No. Sorry. Not going in the article.—chbarts (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction about IE support[edit]

The lead paragraph says that the blink tag is not supported by Internet Explorer, and the Usage section says it is supported by Internet Explorer. I don't have any Windows computers nearby to test on (and my Windows XP VM is quite dead at the moment), can someone verify IE support (perhaps it was added or removed from a specific version? Use something like IE Collection on XP to test?) and correct the article?

Thanks --AndreniW (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The confusion appears to have been caused by an IP removing some text back in March. IE never supported blink. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Claims Safari supports but tests do not confirm[edit]

The article says Apple's Safari supports the blink tag, but a test on Safari 6.0 (7536.25) on Mac OS X 10.7.4 does not blink. Same test HTML blinks in Firefox 12.0.

17:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.110.18 (talk)

Safari does not support blink, either as a tag or CSS. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No seizure triggers.[edit]

We will not include in this article anything that our own sources say could trigger a seizure.—chbarts (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You've been arguing this for years, in between your blocks. It should stay, because blink might be annoying but it's also too slow to be an epilepsy trigger. Besides mis-quoting the refs for your opinion, you also broke the edit and left half of the contested content behind anyway. My main objection to your edit was not a fondness for blink, but mainly a dislike of incompetent edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.138.108.92 (talk)
Please provide a cite for the statement that "it is too slow to be an epilepsy trigger" and please refrain from being abusive on talk pages. It is not on-mission.—chbarts (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have removed medical advice given by an ignorant user. We do not need it here, or anywhere else.—69.145.144.47 (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Google blink render engine[edit]

Need some info about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.70.80.73 (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Firefox just removed it in 23beta[edit]

Firefox has just removed <blink> from version 23 beta (http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0beta/releasenotes/).--tumaru (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible epilepsy trigger removed[edit]

Yes, this again. Despite the insults of certain editors, I think it is off-mission for Wikipedia to induce seizures.—chbarts (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove potential source of seizures[edit]

Consensus is meaningless when an element of the page could hurt someone. We're not going to engage in OR or synthesis on this one.—chbarts (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Blink text: OK, let's talk about this again.[edit]

I keep removing the blinking text for the simple reason that our own cites say it can cause seizures. That is an issue which goes over and above our notions of consensus. It is far more important than any Wikipedia rules, and it is impossible to justify re-adding it without at least discussing it on the talk page.

So. I keep making these little sub-headings on the appropriate page, nobody but me puts text under them when they re-add the blinking seizure trigger, and I'm the one who gets threatened with being blocked. Can we at least have a discussion before the block hammer comes down?—chbarts (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Another day, another complete lack of discussion before re-adding, another removal.[edit]

This is absurd. People keep re-adding the seizure trigger without even attempting to discuss it here, and everyone's expected to be OK with triggering seizures in people? The browser makers removed the damned tag for a reason, and resorting to hacks to re-implement it might be just the tiniest bit antisocial.—chbarts (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)