On 18/08/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/17/07, Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
some minor comments.
Instead of offering 6 choices, just offer one. 200px or 250px.
The full option is useful to users who don't want to do HTML, but just want the full
image. I hope we keep that. It's much more user friendly than the normal link (and
should be made so by just making it say 'Full Size') and will reduce a lot of
confusion that we see today.
Ah yes. Although it is redundant. It would be nice if eventually what
we're doing was default and then the link no one uses was removed.
Change
those six links to just be a single option "Use this image on your
webpage outside Wikimedia
I think we need to draw the line at being bold when we get to the point of spending the
Foundation's money, or more clearly our donors' money.
I agree entirely with this part of your post. my enthusiasm for the
notion may have clouded my expressing this. :)
A huge part of the reason people embed Flickr images
is because Flickr is cheap/free image hosting for blogs, forums, and other websites. In
many cases they are not using Flickr's library of existing images as much as uploading
their own images. (What Web 2.0 profit dreams Flickr has for this is anyone's guess
;) ). I'm not sure what percentage of external Flickr use is the existing repository
vs images uploaded for pure hosting purposes, but I do know that we shouldn't be
encouraging that sort of use unless we are to abandon the "useful" part of our
mission. (And abandoning that would put us outside of the scope of the Wikimedia
Foundation)
Hm. I agree. But I don't think allowing our images to be easily reused
implies we want people to add their images to our collection. I think
we can knock that kind of behaviour (people uploading personal
collections) on the head easily enough.
cheers,
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/