I would like to have the background image be both tiled and fixed, so it doesn't need to loaded to the full length of pages like Worf, and instead is only loaded to the length of the users screen. Are there any issues with doing this? - Archduk3 00:02, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Our background image is only 120px high and tiled already, so nothing more needs to be downloaded for long articles than for short ones. If you think that fixing the background image saves some amount of browser memory, I'd like to see a reference for that first. Actually, I've often observed something like the opposite - namely fixed backgrounds leading to laggy scrolling, probably because the whole page needs to be re-rendered time and again if individual elements of the page move relative to each other (Reference: google "background-attachment:fixed lag", for example ). I'm against this suggested change. -- Cid Highwind 10:19, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
Every article of a certain length has the background image cut out around a certain point (James T. Kirk and Worf shown). This doesn't happen for everyone, but from what I gathered while discussing this on IRC is that this is a memory issue because our background image is way to "short". The background image should work correctly for everyone, so some fix is required.
- I've uploaded a "longer" background image by simply repeating the pattern. Does that solve the issue? Just out of curiosity, what browser shows this error? -- Cid Highwind 18:01, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
Firefox, and no change. Did you use the "theme designer" to upload the new one? I know you have to use it to change the logo, so I assume the background works the same way. - Archduk3 18:09, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, uploaded via Theme Designer. Just to be sure, did you clear-cache/force-reload, whatever is necessary in Firefox to not be served some old variant of the background image? If you did, that rules out any problems with the background image itself (would have been weird, anyway, because a big bg image and a smaller one repeated should take up about the same amount of memory in "rendered" form). It might be a rendering bug of the browser version you are using, perhaps related to one or another of the new CSS3 rules being used for the background. Which version exactly do you use? -- Cid Highwind 20:46, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
I generally have my browsers set to not keep a cache, but I have forced a reload on both pages. I'm currently using version 9.0.1, but I know the last version I was using also had the same problem. I know IE doesn't show the problem on the same computer, so it might just be the browser, but it seems weird that Sannse, who was using Firefox as far as I remember, didn't have the same problem just a week or so ago. - Archduk3 20:58, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Hey guys, I just tested this myself on a low-memory PC using Firefox 9. If this is still happening for you can you A) Take a screenshot of how it is "cutting" off and B) Send a report to Special:Contact (even if you can't take a screenshot). This will help us determine if it's a browser or operating system issue. --daNASCAT (help forum | blog) 17:32, January 25, 2012 (UTC)