    |
|
|
|
| |
On
June 7 I posted five works to the BEA User Gallery. When I viewed
the posts I saw that the HTML with which I encode my signature had
been stripped out, leaving a plain-text word in place of the logo
I put in my art in the same form that I post text with. Then I read
the discussion threads in the Forum regarding what was termed an ugly,
objectionable, dangerous spam and why it was proof HTML had to go.
I disagree, for several reasons:
- As some former
posters have pointed out, the signatures accompanying their posts
contained contact info or a web URL, making it easy for the curious
to interact with them. Stripping out HTML does not stop the spamming
of a useless URL, but it does force those who want to make use
of it to perform steps that could have been made automatic. Reinstating
HTML functionality in the User Gallery would have almost no effect,
good or bad, on the spammers (few of whom can do anything truly
creative or destructive with it anyway), but it would give artists
the chance to showcase their works more accessibly. The argument
is convenience.
- Spam is always
ugly; banning it is impossible; removing or crippling the tools
of HTML creativity to slow it is futile, as has since been proven.
It would be far more to the point to actually remove the spam;
that does not happen with any predictability. The argument is
effectiveness.
- The User
Gallery already had a checkbox to disable HTML in posts from being
displayed; the main reason cited for turning off HTML completely
had to do with improper codes making it impossible for the Moderators
to delete part of a post. It was noted that the problem could
have been with the script rather than the usage; as usual for
the BEA, no mention has been made since then about what is or
is not being done. It should not be hard at all to discover what
broke the post in question, and to prevent that from happening
again, without removing HTML of all kinds from all posts. The
argument is control.
- I spent significant
thought, time and effort choosing the logo I use, as I do with
whatever I create. I have reasons for wanting my signature encoded
as it was when I posted; some of those reasons deal with more
than appearance. I do not appreciate being told to stop being
creative just to protect someone's fragile aesthetics concerning
"spam". The argument is style.
- As shown
above, there are ways to enhance a presentation with HTML which
cannot be reproduced without it, and some of us can use those
methods to good effect. If I can't even post French Vanilla in
the galleries, my work will show up elsewhere or not at all. The
argument is freedom of expression.
I am aware of several
others who await the return of HTML to the User Gallery; like those
artists, I choose to continue my work, but to withhold it from view
in the BEA galleries until I have free rein to display it as I see
fit. Look at the works above; see some of what you've been missing;
tell me why this should be so. |
| |
| There
shall be no more posts by me to the BEA User Gallery until they can
appear as: |
SoliTr0n
|
|
