Dear all,
As part of the Multimedia usability project [1], we're going to set up a prototype environment, similar to the "sandboxes" used by the Wikipedia Usability initiative [2].
Importing all of Commons into the prototype would be overkill. As a consequence, we're looking for a small subset of content from Commons to use as a sample.
We would like to have a reasonable range of: * filetypes * file sizes * licenses * metadata
We don't necessarily need a wide range of topics.
Would you have any suggestion of category (or set of categories) to use for this purpose?
[1] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia:About [2] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sandbox
On 3 February 2010 20:46, Guillaume Paumier gpaumier@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
As part of the Multimedia usability project [1], we're going to set up a prototype environment, similar to the "sandboxes" used by the Wikipedia Usability initiative [2].
Importing all of Commons into the prototype would be overkill. As a consequence, we're looking for a small subset of content from Commons to use as a sample.
We would like to have a reasonable range of:
- filetypes
- file sizes
- licenses
- metadata
We don't necessarily need a wide range of topics.
Would you have any suggestion of category (or set of categories) to use for this purpose?
[1] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia:About [2] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sandbox
-- Guillaume Paumier Product Manager, Multimedia Usability Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
What are you looking for that hitting [[special:random/file]] as many times as images are needed won't provide?
geni schrieb:
What are you looking for that hitting [[special:random/file]] as many times as images are needed won't provide?
That would give a fair sample, but not necessarily a good sample. the usability folks need "a few of each kind" for testing. getting numbers proportional to the actual "population" of images is unnecessary and probably rather counterproductive.
So, I see two tasks: * identifying relevant "group" of media (along the parameters guillom specified) * sampling from each group
-- daniel
On 3 February 2010 21:54, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
geni schrieb:
What are you looking for that hitting [[special:random/file]] as many times as images are needed won't provide?
That would give a fair sample, but not necessarily a good sample. the usability folks need "a few of each kind" for testing. getting numbers proportional to the actual "population" of images is unnecessary and probably rather counterproductive.
So, I see two tasks:
- identifying relevant "group" of media (along the parameters guillom specified)
- sampling from each group
-- daniel
At a guess I'd say the museum categories are the best bet. Stuff like:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Science_Museum_%28London%29 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Museum
geni schrieb:
On 3 February 2010 21:54, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
geni schrieb:
What are you looking for that hitting [[special:random/file]] as many times as images are needed won't provide?
That would give a fair sample, but not necessarily a good sample. the usability folks need "a few of each kind" for testing. getting numbers proportional to the actual "population" of images is unnecessary and probably rather counterproductive.
So, I see two tasks:
- identifying relevant "group" of media (along the parameters guillom specified)
- sampling from each group
-- daniel
At a guess I'd say the museum categories are the best bet. Stuff like:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Science_Museum_%28London%29 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Museum
I think the museum categories are *one* interesting group of pretty uniform content.
-- daniel
On 3 February 2010 22:01, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
I think the museum categories are *one* interesting group of pretty uniform content.
-- daniel
They provide a range of image sizes and licenses. Formats are harder. A few vids but yes SVG and djvu is limited.
But not video, audio, animated diagrams..
On 3 February 2010 22:05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 February 2010 22:01, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
I think the museum categories are *one* interesting group of pretty
uniform content.
-- daniel
They provide a range of image sizes and licenses. Formats are harder. A few vids but yes SVG and djvu is limited.
-- geni
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 3 February 2010 22:13, Caroline Ford caroline.ford.work@googlemail.com wrote:
But not video, audio, animated diagrams..
The science museum and it's sub cats should contain at least two videos.
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
Dear all,
As part of the Multimedia usability project [1], we're going to set up a prototype environment, similar to the "sandboxes" used by the Wikipedia Usability initiative [2].
Importing all of Commons into the prototype would be overkill. As a consequence, we're looking for a small subset of content from Commons to use as a sample.
We would like to have a reasonable range of:
- filetypes
- file sizes
- licenses
- metadata
We don't necessarily need a wide range of topics.
Would you have any suggestion of category (or set of categories) to use for this purpose?
[1] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia:About [2] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sandbox
What are you going to test there? For many usages you could just use commons as repository, so you wouldn't need to "import" anything.
Hi,
Platonides a écrit :
What are you going to test there? For many usages you could just use commons as repository, so you wouldn't need to "import" anything.
At some point we will work on the file description page, for example. Or basic editing tools such as crop / rotate etc. For these cases, we need "local" files.
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
Hi,
Platonides a écrit :
What are you going to test there? For many usages you could just use commons as repository, so you wouldn't need to "import" anything.
At some point we will work on the file description page, for example. Or basic editing tools such as crop / rotate etc. For these cases, we need "local" files.
This may be interesting for you then: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Platonides/rotateImage.js
At this point it only rotates the image to allow you to see how it will be if it has a {{rotate}} but if there are plans to allow to rotate images inside the wiki, that javascript rotation will be useful.