Hoi,
We have MANY individual images that will benefit from the Djatoka, more importantly particularly mobile users will benefit a lot.

Almost all our pictures where we look at the full pictures and that are bigger then the screen will benefit. When the screen is the same size as the picture, the loading will give you much sooner an impression of the picture, allowing you to abort the rest of the download.

So really truly and honestly the Indonesian story cloth is an extreme example why we will benefit from Djatoka, it is easy to grasp why you NEED it for this picture, all the other pictures are as deserving and, the Djatoka approach provides a much better user experience.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 11 March 2010 12:02, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
On 11 March 2010 09:58, Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net> wrote:

> I would love to see something like Zoomify/SlippyMap for all image on
> Commons (or even direct on Wikipedia) as a way of zooming in on
> detail rather than needing to download the whole image - presumably
> that's essentially what Djatoka does?

There's a good article on the implementation of Djakota here:

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september08/chute/09chute.html

(I was very taken by it when I looked into it for a project at work a
year or so back, but that sadly never got off the ground...)

It seems that the main benefit of Djakota is that it's an elegant and
open-source front end built upon JPEG 2000; it's this, the actual
image format, which allows things like progressive loading from set
coordinates within the image rather than downloading the entire file.
You need the software to handle them, but you're not tied to a
specific implementation.

If we can generate these source files (there are vague worries about
licensing, but to my untrained eye it seems okay) and store them
without size issues then we'd have two options:

* run a seperate system for viewing very large files, which we hand
the user off to, perhaps in a popup window; run this on Djakota or
something very like it, hosted locally, and make it seem as seamless
as possible

* integrate the "image browser" into MediaWiki itself, like we
integrate the existing media players.

Technically, I have no idea which of those would be more desireable or
less headachey - anyone?

I do agree entirely that something like this is quite desirable; even
if we don't have many individual items requiring this sort of
capability now, build it and they will come...

--
- Andrew Gray
 andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l