# Should attaching an image be more obvious?
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315
**Category:** UX
**Created:** [22 juli 2015 om 22:50 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315 "2015-07-22T22:50:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 9
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@jesselperry](https://meta.discourse.org/u/jesselperry)
#### Post date: [7 augustus 2015 om 15:04 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315/41 "2015-08-07T15:04:45Z")
Naturally I love this idea. Especially the Gmail one.
---
### Author:  [@strager](https://meta.discourse.org/u/strager)
#### Post date: [7 augustus 2015 om 16:31 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315/42 "2015-08-07T16:31:11Z")
I’m partial to the Gmail approach myself personally… You could give a lot more control to new users while still maintaining a clean interface.
---
### Author:  [@geoff777](https://meta.discourse.org/u/geoff777)
#### Post date: [11 augustus 2015 om 11:10 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315/43 "2015-08-11T11:10:36Z")
The Gmail approach seems superior.
Minimalist but fully functional.
---
### Author:  [@joecures](https://meta.discourse.org/u/joecures)
#### Post date: [11 augustus 2016 om 04:25 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315/44 "2016-08-11T04:25:13Z")
Hello. I see its been a year since the last post, I am just wondering if this topic has been continued on somewhere? I think that there is a real case for a more approachable composer especially for mobile users. Just inquiring. Thank you.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [11 augustus 2016 om 04:30 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315/45 "2016-08-11T04:30:43Z")
For mobile users there has always been a printed word “Upload” that you can tap to upload.
---
### Author:  [@joecures](https://meta.discourse.org/u/joecures)
#### Post date: [11 augustus 2016 om 04:37 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315/46 "2016-08-11T04:37:33Z")
Thanks for the reply. I was more so referring to the ability to have a “simplified” composer that obfuscates the editing options (specifically for a mobile user). See:
> [@Should attaching an image be more obvious?](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315/40):
>
> Another option is to hide all the editing options altogether, ala what Kinja does now… Or, have just a few “major” toolbar elements then click to expand them all. Gmail basically does that. [image]
---
### Author:  [@Falco](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Falco)
#### Post date: [11 augustus 2016 om 04:50 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315/47 "2016-08-11T04:50:02Z")
> [@joecures](#):
>
> I was more so referring to the ability to have a “simplified” composer that obfuscates the editing options (specifically for a mobile user)
The toolbar is already hidden by default on mobile.
---
### Author:  [@joecures](https://meta.discourse.org/u/joecures)
#### Post date: [11 augustus 2016 om 04:58 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315/48 "2016-08-11T04:58:05Z")
I’m on an iPhone 6s and this is what I see in my composer:
I am using the chrome browser.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [11 augustus 2016 om 05:20 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315/49 "2016-08-11T05:20:46Z")
On larger phones I believe the toolbar was shown due to popular demand. Try it using a smaller device, or a simulator in your desktop browser.
[Vorige pagina](https://meta.discourse.org/t/should-attaching-an-image-be-more-obvious/31315.md?page=2)