搜尋 Mozilla 技術支援網站


Learn More

此討論串已經關閉並封存。 如果您有需要幫助,請新增一個新問題

Load Images Automatically Missing

  • 31 回覆
  • 29 有這個問題
  • 474 次檢視
  • 最近回覆由 ballhest

more options

Firefox Version 23.0 Mac 10.8.4

With version 23 of Firefox the preference "Load Images Automatically" under the content tab is GONE. The only options that remain are Block Pop Up Windows, Fonts & Colors, and Languages.

I use this preference EXTENSIVELY and I have searched every corner of the preference panel in case it was moved and I cannot find it anywhere. Please do not tell me you got rid of this function.

UNRELATED - On this website there is no way to contact support with an existing account. Clicking on the 'I already have an account' button does absolutely nothing. I have tried it in every browser. You must create a new user account to get the page I am writing you on.

This thread has been locked by a moderator because the recent tone of the responses has deteriorated into the gutter. Question asked and answered (repeatedly). Please start your own thread using Ask a question if you need support.

由 the-edmeister 於 修改


The checkbox was a convenient way to switch the permissions.default.image preference between 1 (checked) and 2 (cleared). However, it did not provide any additional functionality.

Do you want to investigate this extension as a workaround? A toolbar button would be more convenient than using the Options dialog or about:config.

Image Block - "Image Block adds a toggle button that conditionally blocks/allows loading of images on webpages."

從原來的回覆中察看解決方案 👍 3

所有回覆 (20)

more options

right-click the page > View Page Info --> Permissions

Load Images is controlled by domain.

more options

A lot of users accidentally hide all the images globally or from a particular site, so the feature has been made harder to use accidentally by showing it only on the site's permissions.

Did you use the global checkbox regularly? If so, was there a reason such as bandwidth management?

more options

So are you saying I have to go to a site first and then turn off images? If so, that makes no sense. I need to be able to click a link and know no images will load, no matter what the site is.

With that option in preferences I could also use Firefox for personal uses too.

Can you turn off images globally and then allow them back on a per site basis?

more options

You would need to make the change on the about:config page to the permissions.default.image pref and set its value to 2 to block images by default.

Please do not comment in bug reports: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html

由 cor-el 於 修改

more options

Thanks for the reply. This is going to be a lot more effort. I really wish Firefox would go back to supporting the kind of user who would not be confused by a load images box. There are plenty of options for those people these days.

I guess I will have to go back to the stable builds. Is load images still a pref in 21? Should I expect to be able to update to 22 before having to turn updates off permanently?

Thanks for all your help.

more options


The checkbox was a convenient way to switch the permissions.default.image preference between 1 (checked) and 2 (cleared). However, it did not provide any additional functionality.

Do you want to investigate this extension as a workaround? A toolbar button would be more convenient than using the Options dialog or about:config.

Image Block - "Image Block adds a toggle button that conditionally blocks/allows loading of images on webpages."

more options

jscher2000, I was in near panic today when I saw what had happened to Firefox… That image block extension is PERFECT! You have saved me countless frustration. Thank you!!

Thanks to all who replied!

more options

I don't mind using the "permissions.default.image" option if I want to block images by default (I don't want to).

But, aside from the check-box, the "Exceptions..." button was also removed. For me, it was a way to see all the sites I selectively blocked using "right-click (page)" > "View Page Info" > "Permissions". And to remove all exceptions with a click of the mouse.

Is there an alternative way to do this now? Notice that "about:permissions" does not show image loading among the permissions.

Why do I ask this? The mayor issue for me is that I usually block images from some third party sites. First, I open the image with "right-click (image)" > "view image". Then use "right-click (page)" > "View Page Info --> "Permissions" to block loading images from that site. But then, when the images are not showing, how do I get to the site? 'cause there are no images to "right-click" on, to get to it. Do I need to remember the domain and type it manually?.

由 omega32 於 修改

more options
more options

Still want to know how to manage the exceptions, other than manually editing "permissions.sqlite". But I guess I'll have to adapt and stop using Firefox built in permission system.

"Tab Permissions" will work great for what I wanna do at the moment. Thanks.

more options

You can manage the image permissions for the current tab in "Tools > Page Info > Permissions"

more options

Yea, but the point is... how to manage the permission in a centralized manner. Because you may not know or remember the host name you configured permissions for. For "Tools > Page Info > Permissions" to work, you need to open the page first.

I posted an example were you can block images from third party sites, first opening the image on a new tab using "right click > view image" and then changing the permission using the "Tools > Page Info > Permissions" technique.

But then (some days later).... how do you undo that? if you don't remember or noted the particular third party domain you configured the permission for.

Anyways, I'm not actually expecting an answer here. From now on I'll just use alternatives ways to block images.

Again, thanks for pointing to "Tab Permissions", it's just what I needed.

more options

With Firefox 22.0 blocking images is just two mouse clicks, which is great, but now to undo an image mistake I have to trawl the web looking for third party browser add-ons?

Many images on web pages, wanted and unwanted, come from a different address than the page being viewed. If I am viewing a web page at www.site1.com and it's getting its images from www.site2.com and I inadvertently block images from www.site2.com by right-clicking on a picture it's now a real pain to fix it. It *is* possible to fix by right-clicking on a page to get to the "View Page Info --> Media" tab and hunt through the list of content which the page is trying to load for something which looks like an image from an address which you might not have intended to block and then untick the "Block images from..." box, but this is a massive step backwards in user friendliness!

由 moopig 於 修改

more options
more options

In my opinion this is an awful change. I' find myself switching this option on and off very often simply because I want to read discreetly when in public, and this is annoying.

With all due respect, "it did not provide any additional functionality" is a terrible, terrible, argument. Following that logic one might as well remove all the GUI-configurable options, so no.

About "A lot of users accidentally hide all the images globally or from a particular site", I find it very hard to believe. The description of the checkbox was clear enough not to cause confusion, and anybody meddling with those buttons should know better. Why would an inexperienced user be there anyway?

So I don't find any good reason for the change. The best option in my opinion would be to enable/disable the checkboxes, so if someone enables an internal variable (which, I think everybody would agree, would be far from accidental) the GUI goes back to its previous state. Still idiot-proof, and everyone happy.

I'm annoyed by software calling me stupid by default, but I can live with it. What I don't stand is software simply calling me stupid.

more options

Hi Kyph, I did not mean the phrase "it did not provide any additional functionality" to be a good reason to remove the checkbox, only to point out that the actual thing the checkbox did was not removed from Firefox as some had feared.

more options

Fair enough! Sorry, just venting some frustration here :P

more options

FMTT I used both the "load images automatically" and "enable javascript" options all the time because I'm restricted to a slow dial-up connection when I'm at home.

It made the most sense to have those options under the Content tab, but I could see moving them to the Advanced tab if they really were causing that much confusion with the majority of end users.

I read Alex Limi's blog post. Was he bored and trying to justify his job that day? His argument that these checkboxes kill Firefox is specious at best. Are there no REAL bugs in Firefox that need to be fixed?

Apparently, Firefox is trying to cater to the mouth-breathers of the world. I'm sorry if one is so stupid that they can't figure out the purpose of those two options but if they're that stupid they don't need to be on the internet to begin with.

If Firefox continues with Limi's line of reasoning then I fully expect to see Firefox devolve into a window with only 3 big buttons. Back, Forward and Search. Hopefully, that won't be too confusing to Firefox's target audience.

I used to tell people that Firefox was the best browser out there. Now, I can only say that it's currently the least sh!++y. Time to give Opera another go.

more options

Actually, this does seem to remove functionality, or at least alters the browsing experience. Prior to the check box being removed, if you unchecked the box, it would load placeholders so you could see where the images were supposed to be. If you use the per page/site permissions in Page Info, as suggested, it doesn't do that and simply removes everything related to the images from what loads, and affects the layout of pages. This makes it quite unusable if you're trying to identify a particular image or check a layout with and without images.

What strikes me as odd and frankly disappointing is that all the discussion seems to be geared towards "what can be stripped out next" rather than "is anything actually gained by removing a particular item". I truly doubt getting rid of that check box improved stability or increased speed of the browser.

All it seems to do is make it harder for the end user to configure the browser the way they want without having to resort to plugins for basic functionality that's been in just about every web browser capable of loading pictures, and remains a feature in both IE and Chrome. 

While I'm not quite as fed up as ian-smith, I don't care for the drive towards extreme minimalism in the interface that's been going on for some time now.

Functions stripped out because the people doing the coding today don't use them themselves and the people they supposedly poll don't either (I've yet to encounter anyone who has ever been polled or even asked about features), even if it offers no improvement in performance at all; apparently being where someone can see it easily is enough reason to remove it.

Taking basic functions away, (to me, burying controls in about:config is functionally the same to the average user as removing it) and forcing people to rely on plugins that may or may not exist, and often can't replicate the lost functionality is the development team doing a massive disservice to the users for no good reason.

You say use a plugin, but when people have issues with those, you say disable the plugins- they're causing the problem (ignoring that a good number of plugins exist simply to try and replace removed functions in the first place). Which is it? Having it both ways just pisses people off and drives them away from Firefox, or keeps them on older versions. Which is what it looks like I'll be doing again, still hoping (in vain most likely) that the check box will be put back in a later version.

more options

Hi JATaylor, I don't think placeholders are a native feature of Firefox, except in "quirks" mode (typically older pages).

I compared the "portable" version of Firefox 22 with Firefox 23 and didn't get any placeholders in either on the one page I tested.

You can use a custom style rule to force Firefox to always display the "broken image" placeholder even in standards mode. This only works if the image dimensions are specified in the page rather than computed during/after the image is loaded (in that case, the placeholder has no size).

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);
img {-moz-force-broken-image-icon:1 !important}

You can implement this using a userContent.css file (I think) or using the Stylish extension (pictured in the third attachment).

  1. 1
  2. 2