Talk:Blink element

Example got broken

 Added

The example doesn't blink (anymore?) in Chrome because many browser vendors cancelled the support for it. Should be replaced by a GIF that shows, what <BLINK> did. Franky666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:58:EC3E:E210:C90B:E553:918E:D227 (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I added a GIF that showed what <BLINK> did, from the now defunct MDN docs that described the element. 😄 I'm worried that it's a little too flashy, but it is slowed down to reduce eye strain. Reading some old comments on this talk page. I don't think that an example of the blink element is risky for seizures (especially since this example was on the MDN website for over a decade), but to be safe we can convert the gif to a video file that the user would need to click to play with a warning in the caption? Jamesjpk (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Article name (Blink tag)

This article should more properly be called "Blink element type". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.194.223 (talk • contribs) 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Google blink render engine

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

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

Remove potential source of seizures

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.

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.

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)

It is not a "seizure trigger". Has anyone ever had a seizure caused by the blink tag? Browser makers removed the blink tag because it was not being used anymore, it had user experience issues and its use was criticized by most web designers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.124.111.21 (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Our own cites say it is.—chbarts (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved example to bottom

OK, so we're going to risk seizures. We can at least give the epileptics a fighting chance here.—chbarts (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chbarts: It seems that you have been continually removing examples and illustrations from this article for thirteen years, and during this time you have not offered any rationale for the removal based on consensus, policy, guidelines or evidence. Please do not remove it again, unless you can come up with some evidence that it is causing people to have seizures. I find your claim extremely unlikely prima facie, since there are thousands of Wikipedia articles with animated images and videos in them, which we do not censor preemptively on the basis that they might(?) cause someone to have a seizure. jp×g🗯️ 23:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: You are bothering me over an eight-year-old talk page message that nobody responded to at the time. If you want to have a discussion, great. I've been trying to discuss this for years, as you can see, but if you just want to use policy to bother me I don't have the time.—chbarts (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Since leaving this message, you removed it an additional two times ("That's deeply annoying so it's gone now." and "Removed blinking text that made article unreadable"). I would be fine with opening an RfC or something, but I am opposed to a slow-motion edit war over the course of a decade. jp×g🗯️ 00:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blink element. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)