&quot;The ugly red circle-minus&quot;

Fri, 22 Nov 2019 03:02:42 +0000

I had a flash of inspiration this evening while staring at the ugly red circle-minus.

I always get confused when I see it as to what it means, so I put together something a little more descriptive/intuitive.

There are 3 states - Green, Yellow, Red.

Green means all tested permissions are allowed.
Yellow means one or more tested permissions are allowed.
Red means no tested permissions are allowed.

As currently configured, the permissions that are tested are, "send stream items," "comment," and "post to wall". I debated also including, "can chat" and "send private messages," (zmail) but I'm not sure how much those things are used at this point (most of my hubs have those things as unavailable for use anyway). So I chose to stick to things that didn't at all require addons or any thing remotely resembling "advanced" features.

Hovering over the icon will display what permissions the remote allows.

I still have some minor integration work to do to implement it in all the places where the red-circle-minus shows up, but I wanted to ask the consensus of the group about whether I should put in a merge request for it or if there is something obviously bad about this approach or if there were any other thoughts.

My idea is to try to keep it simple, but make it a bit more intuitive especially for new folks.

show all 45 Comments

Fri, 22 Nov 2019 04:35:42 +0000

I finished it up and submitted an MR to DEV for it if anyone is desirous to take a peek.

More descriptive connection status icons (!1789) · Merge Requests · hubzilla / core

Robert Kormann

Fri, 22 Nov 2019 16:53:25 +0000

The hovering stuff makes it understandable. So, yes, good inspiration. Thank you.

Fri, 22 Nov 2019 17:25:03 +0000 last edited: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 17:23:16 +0000

I think that is a great modification. The hover state, indeed, helps users figure out what the symbol indicates.

Giacomino

Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:11:29 +0000

do you remember why the red circleminus was born?

it was in order to distinguish purposefully and clearly that on the other hand the connection was not well accepted (the context was people of the extreme right, for example, who added connections from all sides), was a way of saying: "hey, I have nothing to do with that racist or Nazi."

So, I don't think your new approach is what I want, it certainly seems more "kind" and less "dramatic", but, let us not forget why it was created.

Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:32:56 +0000 last edited: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:35:39 +0000

@M. Dent Perhaps we can move part of new code with contact interactions description creation into common function? It would be great if we can reuse the same code instead duplicating it in different places.

UPD. I also have added space after comma into "Accepts:" list for readability.

Mario Vavti

Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:33:49 +0000

@M. Dent i like the idea but it seems to me that more info than necessary is being published to authenticated or anonymous viewers...

Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:38:55 +0000 last edited: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:37:06 +0000

@Giacomino -

I wasn't here during that time.  But I don't see how this is any kinder or even less dramatic.  I may argue it is even more so.

The hover over the red bubbles is, "Accepts: Nothing."  And the only test that was performed was whether or not you would accept comments on your posts from the remote.  It said nothing about whether or not you would receive their posts in your stream or whether or not they were allowed to post on your wall.

What's more - without at all intending to disparage anyone who worked on it, it was clearly a quick fix to a more complex problem that never got fully resolved.

The way that the red minus is implemented, it is trivial for bad actors to simply hide it and show everyone on their contact list as a full connection with no marker at all.  either modify a couple css files or a small handful of .tpl files, and you're done.  Or, monkey with the code just a little bit, and the "one way" sign disappears.

Also - this is one reason I opened a discussion - I don't quite think it's in "final form" and likely needs some tweaks.  One of those may be --- when NO permissions are allowed, use the red minus sign.

Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:56:04 +0000 last edited: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:59:32 +0000

@Max Kostikov -  Yeah, I agree with moving it into a separate function - I even started to do it, but wasn't sure where it fit best (probably include/text.php?).  I'd also like to possibly add a hook in order to allow addons to add/remove details.

@Mario Vavti - I considered that also.  I actually wasn't entirely happy with the idea of non-local users seeing it at all.

Getting back to @Giacomino's point, the way to deal with both may be to split out what appears to the channel owner versus what appears to others.

Right now, it's set up as the original code was - entirely based on what the channel owner is permitted to do on the connection's channel.  Several options present themselves:

(1) Hide any sort of status from non-channel-owners.
(2) Show non-channel owners what "remote" channels are allowed to do on the channel-owner page.
(3) Show non-channel owners what the channel owner is allowed to do on the remote channel page. (This is the current mechanism)
(4) Reduce what appears to non-channel owners to an all or nothing (basically - if they don't have all permissions tested, show them with the red)

Another option I just thought of is, I don't think it would take much to modify things in such a way that only FULL connections (all permissions allowed) show up in the connection list/widget.  Or - add (yet another) permission for each contact, "Can publicize our mutual connection."  UPDATE: I think this last option will basically make the connections widget virtually useless - it's doubtful that most people will take the time to go in and make the change.  And with the privacy mindset most users have, setting it to default "yes" may not be the best idea.

Of course, as stated above about the red-minus, either of these two options could fairly easily be circumvented by a bad actor who had access to the code running on a node.

Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:40:13 +0000 last edited: Sun, 01 Dec 2019 17:21:46 +0000

Very nice. In a similar way the ugly dark-red alert pop-up messages could be transformed into two or three kinds of messages (with different colors). Especially the message "Cart item added" accompanied by the alert sign on dark-red background is irritating, it would be friendlier to get this message on a green background and with a check mark

Alexandre Hannud Abdo

Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:10:55 +0000

For third parties I would only change the current red sign for the red balloons, which are much prettier and convey the same message (no send stream). I don't want anyone to know what other permissions I'm giving everybody else. Now, for looking at my own connections, this would indeed be a very nice improvement!

Sat, 23 Nov 2019 17:30:26 +0000 last edited: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 19:05:10 +0000

Right now the red sign conveys "can't comment".  I always think it means "no send stream" as well.  The real "meaning" is that the connection is not "mutual".  Code comments indicate that missing the permission "can_comment" was chosen to indicate that it wasn't mutual, but I always think that send_stream indicates that.  The ambiguity of the current mechanism is part of what prompted this.

I think what I'd like to do is this:

When looking at your own channel --->  use the new version as indicated above indicating what you are able to do in relation to the remote channel.

When looking at someone else's channel----> If it isn't a FULL connection (can comment, can post to wall AND can send stream), don't display it as a connection at all.  Basically - only show connections that are accepting content from the channel currently being viewed.

Then create a "Channels I follow" widget.

The "Channels I follow" would test for my_perms['can_send_stream'] (or whatever it is).  If 'send_stream" is denied, use the red stop sign (I follow them, but THEY don't follow ME!).

Rationale:
==========
As it is coded, the "Connections" widget seems to be more or less a "Channels that follow me" type list.

I think splitting it into two different widgets based on "I follow" / "Follow me" would resolve many of the issues.

@Giacomino  - does that sound like a reasonable way to convey what was originally intended?

UPDATE: Made some changes in the text to try to make it a little more clear.

Giacomino

Sat, 23 Nov 2019 19:10:02 +0000

I do not know if it is possible at present, but the best thing, when there is no connection/mutual-friendship, is:
not being present in the list of connections of the person that you do not care- you do not like.

Sat, 23 Nov 2019 20:57:20 +0000 last edited: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 20:55:28 +0000

@Giacomino

So, are you suggesting that we do away with the "Channels I follow" idea entirely and just go with a "My Connections" type widget that only puts connections on the list if it channel will receive material from me (Wall posts, stream items, comments/likes)?

Or are you advocating for another explicit permission, "Can list me as a connection"?

(Of course, realize, those with access to the code on a hub can basically list anyone, no matter what.)

Alexandre Hannud Abdo

Sat, 23 Nov 2019 22:14:09 +0000

@M. Dent cool! splitting the widget in two makes a lot of sense to me. Only I wouldn't use "full connection" as criteria, only "send stream". There are a variety of reasons people won't give you comment or wall access and still consider they're following you. Also, I consider comment permissions more private and would be less interested in exposing them.

Giacomino

Sun, 24 Nov 2019 15:40:02 +0000

something that makes understand that I have nothing to do with that person...

it does not matter how it is done.

those with access to the code on a hub can basically list anyone
so you talk about the administrator, and not the majority of site/network users.

Giacomino

Sun, 24 Nov 2019 15:49:01 +0000

for me can be a simple signal different from the others, like a half-transparent photo, or a red on the photo, or something else ...and when you passed the mouse over "no mutual friendship-connection", something like that.

Sun, 24 Nov 2019 18:28:52 +0000 last edited: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 18:26:58 +0000

I kind of like the transparency idea. I hadn't thought of that. Then we could still have a single widget. Maybe partially transparent image but with a non-transparent red "unlink"/"broken chain" icon?

Mario Vavti

Sun, 24 Nov 2019 21:27:54 +0000

From the social media aspect i think to have two widgets (following and followers) is the way to go. It is just not clear to me how this translates to all the other permissions in Hubzilla. Maybe we should scrap the widget altogether because Hubzilla is much too hip for that shit...

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 01:56:44 +0000 last edited: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 01:54:50 +0000

I think it technically ends up 3 widgets total:

Here's what I'm thinking at this point --- additional thoughts/comments welcome!

  * My Connections (channel owner view)
      - would use the speech bubbles above.
  * Channels I Follow (as viewed by other channels)
      - Channels that do not follow me would have a slightly transparent image with a red "unlink" icon (hover text: "Connection is not mutual") - determined by "send_stream"
  * Channels that Follow me
      - Channels that I do not follow would have a slightly transparent image with a red "unlink" icon (hover text: "Connection is not mutual")  - determined by "send_stream"

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 01:57:47 +0000 last edited: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 01:55:52 +0000

Anywhere that the channel-owner is viewing connection profiles, it would use the speech bubbles as shown above.

Giacomino

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 02:35:05 +0000

I don't know, you're confusing me.

1- I'm not sure about: determined by "send_stream" (if I have 2 channels it is possible that in one channel I follow the person and in the other I remain a friend but at the same time I don't want to receive his stream again, to avoid filling the database with useless repetitions, but this does not mean that I consider him "a dangerous person", "a political enemy" , or something like that...)

2- Channels that Follow me - but viewed by who?

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 04:42:26 +0000 last edited: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 04:40:32 +0000

1 - I'm not exactly sure how you would propose to make clear the REASON that the link is not mutual.  Maybe having a comment field to specify the reason as part of the "Connection" settings?  It could allow a user to type, "I like this person, but I have two channels and even though they follow both of my channels, I only follow them on one so I don't fill up my database with useless repetition - but I don't consider them a dangerous person or a political enemy," or "I don't know why this person follows me, I consider them a @#$ ##)*# &*(_ and a menace to society."  Then we could use that as the "hover" message if a checkbox is checked?  Of course, that would only appear on MY channel - and the other person could type something deceptive about my narrow mindedness that causes me not to accept their messages even though they accept mine.

My thought was something a bit more automated and since computers can't read minds, that leaves us with just the raw fact, "this connection is not mutual" as if to say, "This channel follows me, but I don't follow this channel" (if someone is looking at the "followers" widget) or "I receive stuff from this channel, but this channel does not  receive stuff from me" if looking at the "channels I follow" widget.  No reasons given - just the plain facts.  "This connection is not bidirectional".  Of course with "superblock" and the ability to silently prevent things from showing up on our stream but give people the illusion that they are sending things to us makes all of this a bit theatrical anyway.  I could silently ignore everything from someone, but they would think that I was receiving it - and no indication would show up anywhere - which is kind of the point, right?.

As I think about it, showing a list of connections already skirts around the "Can view my default channel profile" permission - - - Any sort of follow/follower widget isn't able to check whether the observer has permission to see the default profile of my connections... so .... unless we replace it with a javascript/ajax widget that checks in with the channel owner directly, maybe Mario is right - the best option is just to do away with the who-follows-who widgets all together.

That still leaves us with the confusion of the red-circle-minus when I'm looking at my own connections - which is the problem I was trying to solve originally.

If we are going to keep some sort of "publicly" facing "I follow/they follow me" type widget (which already exists - but remains ambiguous at best) - and if we're going to use the standard settings without somehow trying to give reasons why, we have roughly 3 options   send_stream, can_comment, can_post_on_wall (pseudocode - I don't have the list memorized).

It was mentioned that "can_comment" (which is used currently) may be a bit intimate and too much disclosure.  "can_post_on_wall" seems too broad - I may permit people to post on my wall for various reasons that have nothing to do with any sort of acceptance or endorsement of the content of their channel.

That leaves us with send_stream, unless we are going to further complicate the life of HZ users by adding YET ANOTHER switch/checkbox/permission/whatever - or, maybe we should add two - (1) "Allow this person to announce that we are connected."  (2) "Announce that this person is among my connections."  (Of course, again, this would bypass at least some of the protection envisioned by the "Can view my default channel profile" permission).

2- I guess I could have specified, but I thought it would be rather intuitive that it's viewed by 3rd party observers - - - -  "My Connections" (viewable by channel owner) would be an exhaustive list of my entire address book (people I follow as well as people who follow me).  It seems rather redundant to have a separate widget for me to see who I am following, vs, who is following me.  The colored Icons are, in part, to help make more clear what permissions others have granted to me as the channel owner.

I don't know... I guess I'm now torn.  Perhaps it's time to deprecate the entire "allow 3rd parties to see a list of who I am connected to" idea?

My original concern was - as I look at my own connections as a channel owner - the red-circle-minus icon is at least ambiguous - but to me is actually down-right confusing.  Intuitively - it says that communication from me is blocked - but in reality - it means I can't comment on things from that channel.  It was only after I actually did the first pass of the change that I realized that the same code is used to display information to 3rd parties about my connections and changed that also for consistency sake.

A final option is, "Leave the current system alone and create/enable some hooks to change behavior with addons."

Giacomino

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:56:43 +0000

to be clear:
I don't know how the code works for this case (what is decisive for having the red signal in the list), but what interests me is that it is shown for the external channels curious to see the lists of others, that the connection is not reciprocal , something must be shown for these curious people. This, as explained, because sometimes characters who are not to our liking take over our networks (I speak in extreme cases, like a group of new Nazis).

if you want to change the red signal for something different, for me it's ok, but surely, with regard to the code, I think that should not be taken into consideration: -He can't send his stream into my stream - code line. This for me is wrong.
Right now, what is it that determines the red signal? The lack of mutual connection or "he can't comment"-code line? I don't know these details.

Giacomino

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:14:51 +0000

to be clear for the NEW users:

what happened before: the Nazi on duty arrived who, intrigued by the new software/network, asked for friendship on the right and left, and all these people, oblivious or almost ignorant, were placed on the 'amigos' list of this despicable person. And, as we are not twitter and facebook, the misunderstandings of new users, who saw our faces on the list of friends of a Nazi, was almost rapid!
And for this the solution of the red sign in the avatar was created.

Max

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:18:01 +0000

We must not confuse technical datas (like "can comment", "see my posts") with personal datas (like "I hate this guy").

Giacomino

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:22:10 +0000

I believe that nobody here is confusing things.

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:51:02 +0000 last edited: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:49:06 +0000

Right now, what is it that determines the red signal? The lack of mutual connection or "he can't comment"-code line? I don't know these details.

Right now (prior to any changes made by me), the red signal was determined by "can't comment."

Within the current structure, there is no test whether or not someone responded to a connection request.  So in the code as it is in "master", a check is done to see if the connection has allowed commenting and shows the red sign if commenting is not allowed.

From a technical standpoint, there is no flag for, "lack of mutual connection."  There is only the list of permissions granted to the requesting channel.  In some cases - those permissions are automatically granted to anyone who makes a connection request based on your channel configuration.  Which is why I have focused on those that are the least likely to be automatically granted.

Specifically:

* Can comment/like (which is what is used currently to determine if the red circle minus should be displayed)
* Can send stream
* Can post to wall

Basically, THAT is what we have to work with.

That is why I decided to use the fairly conventional "red, yellow, green" status colors.

RED =  The connection has granted NONE of the listed permissions to this channel to be able to send data.
YELLOW = The connection has granted SOME of the listed permissions to this channel to be able to send data.
GREEN = The connection has granted ALL of the listed permissions to be able to send data.

I think the choice of icon (or icons) is actually important and warrants discussion.  Symbols mean things.  Unfortunately, that meaning isn't always obvious or shared.

Maybe in addition to 3 colors, we should consider 3 different icons?  Maybe something like:

RED - broken chain link -- or -- even keep the current red minus
YELLOW - "signal bars" (like cell strength)
GREEN - speech bubbles.

@Giacomino --  I'm grateful for the conversation and I'm confident we can come to a mutually agreeable solution.  I think once we clearly understand how things currently work and what is possible, it's likely that the correct solution will be fairly self-evident.

Haakon Meland Eriksen (Parlementum)

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:21:50 +0000 last edited: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:35:44 +0000

@M. Dent We need colours and icons to signal the same thing, i.e. (RED or icon) or (YELLOW or icon) or (GREEN or icon) conveys the state of the connection or the state of the permissions. If you are colour blind, the corresponding icon will make sense. I like the signal strength suggestions, e.g. X = no, i = a little, I = more , | = even more. I am not sure how to convey the different states using audio or Braille, but it can be done.

There are also reading conventions for designs like signal strength, i.e. left to right for cell phone bars, bottom to top for wifi, or top to bottom for traffic lights.

Haakon Meland Eriksen (Parlementum)

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:34:50 +0000

Another icon approach that works regardless of colours is different icons, as has already been mentioned by others. It seems to me conventions then lean towards the presence of an eye allows reading and the presence of a pencil allows writing, i.e commenting. If both or either is not allowed, remove clutter by simply not showing them. Less is more.

Alexandre Hannud Abdo

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:36:52 +0000 last edited: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:39:10 +0000

Honestly, "follows me" means "follows me" and nothing else. And "I follow" means just that. Having two widgets makes it perfectly clear and doesn't get into the mess of communicating "mutuality", a notion that doesn't even exist in Zot. There is no need for signs, transparency and whatnot. And the property that translates"follow" is, naturally, "send stream".

Then, for the channel owner, we could add a layer of signs to help quickly see permissions. But I don't even know if that's really desirable. I can imagine opening my channel to show somebody else a post, or just informally opening it in a crowded environment, and not wanting everybody else to see what permissions I get or don't get from everyone on the page.

Giacomino

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:26:59 +0000

Ok Mr Dent, I understand now,
so..I prefer follow the old method :  "can't comment."

For me, follow or not follow is just a twtter shit! (or mastodon shit) :)
So , IMHO ""send stream" is not the right code-thing  to follow here..

Here I mean : "what is shown to those who enter and see on the list of friends of the President Bolsonaro or President Trump?" :)

I'm not talking about what's on my list and what I see, there's no problem with that, you can modify this thing ...no problem

but I'm talking of  what others see and in the lists of characters to avoid.

Giacomino

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:33:31 +0000

Why follow: "he cant comment "?
This is obviously the logical choice, because it is the one that shows in the list : "Hey, he can't comment, because HE is not welcome here! "
This is only a solution for the previously reported problem (exactly for what happened long ago and that caused the birth of the red signal in the list), and not for -what we can see in our list-.

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:37:48 +0000 last edited: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:35:51 +0000

@Alexandre Hannud Abdo

Then, for the channel owner, we could add a layer of signs to help quickly see permissions. But I don't even know if that's really desirable. I can imagine opening my channel to show somebody else a post, or just informally opening it in a crowded environment, and not wanting everybody else to see what permissions I get or don't get from everyone on the page.

Maybe just use those markers in the "Connections" app, so as you're scanning down the list, you can see what's what, but other than that, it's just the "I Follow/Follows me" widgets that everyone else sees?

Alexandre Hannud Abdo

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:55:25 +0000

@M. Dent yeah, that makes sense. I do see the need to more easily spot permissions.

Dreaming big, I would see a toggle on the side bars, where we could define what permissions we want to be checking. So by default you'd see nothing, but you could choose "I give read wiki + they give comment post" and folks with those permissions would show positive sign, folks with some of those would show partial sign, and those with none of those would show stop sign. That's probably too big though, ;D

Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:05:20 +0000 last edited: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:03:28 +0000

@Alexandre Hannud Abdo --- Funny you should mention that........ That's sort of where I was headed!  LOL

EVERYONE --

Ok...

After reading a bit through this discussion...  What about this:

(1) Revert the change from dev (Honestly, I created the Merge Request because it was easy to finish.  It was more or less intended to be *hey look at this* for people who wanted to check it out.  I should have put the WIP: prefix on it, but didn't think about it, so it got merged before I expected it to.  Sorry.)
(2) Create a new merge request with appropriate HOOKS to allow addons to override the default if desired/installed by the hub admin and/or the channel owner (depending on how the addon is created)
(3) Work out some of the ideas discussed here through the hooks and/or alternative WIDGETS using the WIDGET extension interface.

Honestly, I think there are so many different things a channel could BE that the one-size-fits-all solution isn't practical.  Based on the discussions here, I've come up with a number of different scenarios (Forum vs. personal channel vs. celebrity, etc) that each have different needs.  That lends itself to some sort of flexible and customizable alternatives.

That doesn't mean this discussion has to stop (in fact - it'd be GOOD to keep it going!)  But I think that there are enough open concerns with the proposed solution that it just isn't quite ready for prime time.

Alexandre Hannud Abdo

Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:19:52 +0000

Alright, though I think the "non channel owner" bits are quite straightforward, with thetwo widgets based on "send stream" that clear up the confusion, avoids signs etc. I think that should replace the current default widget, with members being able to simply disable either. For the channel owner bits, I'm "sort of" curious to see where youŕe going

I think this discussion also shows the potential usefulness of some sort of "permissions management" app, where one could visualize channels according to permissions, and manipulate them. (i.e. show me all channels that get stream, but don't give send stream, now remove send stream from them; show me all channels that give comment, but don't get comment, now give comment to them - or a selection of them.)

Mario Vavti

Tue, 26 Nov 2019 19:01:12 +0000

@M. Dent

Honestly, I created the Merge Request because it was easy to finish. It was more or less intended to be *hey look at this* for people who wanted to check it out. I should have put the WIP: prefix on it, but didn't think about it, so it got merged before I expected it to. Sorry.

No worries... Dev branch should also be a place to try out things. We would not have this discussion otherwise...

Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:21:03 +0000 last edited: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:21:46 +0000

@M. Dent FYI. Spotted this in /connections on my mobile.

Image/photo

Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:40:33 +0000 last edited: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:37:47 +0000

Hmmmm... Interesting. Haven't seen that. Can you try to grab one of the full html blocks for one of those?

Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:42:01 +0000 last edited: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:39:12 +0000

I'm neck deep in an unrelated project right now ... But will take a look when I can come up for air.

Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:36:20 +0000

@M. Dent Don't sure how to do this in Android Chrome.

Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:34:30 +0000 last edited: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:31:42 +0000

Sorry - didn't see that it was mobile (helps if I read more carefully) - Just did a quick test from my mobile - I'm seeing it also. This could be a fun one to find.... ;)

Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:35:14 +0000 last edited: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:32:24 +0000

Doubly interesting is that it also happens when you set it to "desktop" mode.

Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:36:37 +0000

@M. Dent The same in desktop mode.

Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:39:21 +0000 last edited: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:37:08 +0000

Ok - so it isn't going to be the quick find/fix that I thought it would... (came up for air long enough to take a peek) --- guess I'll have to "add it to the list". Works fine in Linux/Firefox set to mimic cell dimensions, so it's goit to be something funky maybe about the chrome engine or something. Will probably take a bit to find and sort. Ugh. Why is nothing ever easy?!