I guess the best class name would be one that indicates that the image is for viewing 'in the flow of the article only', and isn't really meant for viewing as a standalone image (which is what you would use the mediaviewer for).

So maybe something like:

for-page-only media-reliant media-secondary media-navigational

I guess prefixing it with 'media' would not be a bad idea as well to avoid having it clash with other classnames (that's why 'hide' or 'noshow' would probably be too generic).

-- Hay

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:48 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

I'd probably go with multiple descriptive classes rather than a single tag if you are looking for future proofing.

*navigational *maintenance *award *protection

On 12 May 2014 20:32, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Hi all,

We would appreciate your help to come up with a class name that community members can use to exclude an image from Media Viewer or related tools.

Too many small files (like icons, flags, etc.) appear in Media Viewer for some articles, even though they are unrelated to the topic of the article. Other image files also need to be excluded, because they are not suitable for Media Viewer (such as maps using weird CSS/JS tricks, or images which use a clipping template).

Many community members have reported this issue, which delivers an unpleasant browsing experience for users who only want to view images that are relevant for the article they are reading (and which are supported by Media Viewer).

We agree that this is an important issue. The most practical way to address it would require editors to add a .metadata class to the images they don’t want to show on a page, as proposed here:

https://wikimedia.mingle.thoughtworks.com/projects/multimedia/cards/511

We just need to come up with a class name people are happy with for excluding an image from Media Viewer or related tools. We already exclude images which have a .metadata class, but there are images that aren't really metadata but still not appropriate.

Any ideas? What class name do you recommend we use to convey this important information?

Here are some possible ideas, to get this conversation started;

• hide
• exclude
• noshow
• ??

It would be best if we agreed on a name that is not tied to Media Viewer, so it can be used by other tools which may have the same needs, now or in the future.

Once we settle on a class name, we can schedule that feature for development, so editors can filter out unsuitable images for everyone’s viewing pleasure :)

Thanks for your feedback!

Fabrice

---

Fabrice Florin Product Manager, Multimedia Wikimedia Foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)

---

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

-- geni

---

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

Thanks, Bawolff.

From an end-user perspective, I like the idea of making the tag part of the file embedding syntax, as you propose (e.g.: [[file:foo.png|thumb|no-viewer|…]]).

I defer to our development team on how much more work that would entail. We now only have a few hours per week allocated to Media Viewer feature development, so we’re leaning towards the most expedient solutions right now.

Even if we start with just a class name right now (e.g. '.no-viewer'), that name that could eventually be re-used when we have time to make it part of the file embedding syntax, for consistency purposes.

BTW, I like ’no-viewer’ because it’s short and very explicit — and even if it’s loosely tied to the Media Viewer, it seems open-ended enough to be used by other apps in the future.

-f

On May 12, 2014, at 2:54 PM, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:

On May 12, 2014 4:32 PM, "Fabrice Florin" fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Hi all,

We would appreciate your help to come up with a class name that community members can use to exclude an image from Media Viewer or related tools.

Too many small files (like icons, flags, etc.) appear in Media Viewer for some articles, even though they are unrelated to the topic of the article. Other image files also need to be excluded, because they are not suitable for Media Viewer (such as maps using weird CSS/JS tricks, or images which use a clipping template).

Many community members have reported this issue, which delivers an unpleasant browsing experience for users who only want to view images that are relevant for the article they are reading (and which are supported by Media Viewer).

We agree that this is an important issue. The most practical way to address it would require editors to add a .metadata class to the images they don’t want to show on a page, as proposed here:

https://wikimedia.mingle.thoughtworks.com/projects/multimedia/cards/511

We just need to come up with a class name people are happy with for excluding an image from Media Viewer or related tools. We already exclude images which have a .metadata class, but there are images that aren't really metadata but still not appropriate.

Any ideas? What class name do you recommend we use to convey this important information?

Here are some possible ideas, to get this conversation started;

• hide
• exclude
• noshow
• ??

It would be best if we agreed on a name that is not tied to Media Viewer, so it can be used by other tools which may have the same needs, now or in the future.

Once we settle on a class name, we can schedule that feature for development, so editors can filter out unsuitable images for everyone’s viewing pleasure :)

Thanks for your feedback!

Fabrice

---

Fabrice Florin Product Manager, Multimedia Wikimedia Foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)

---

Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia

Probably much harder to implement... but it might be more consistent to have it as part of the file embedding syntax. E.g. [[file:foo.png|thumb|no-viewer|...]]

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

_______________________________

Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)

On May 12, 2014 7:29 PM, "Gergo Tisza" gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:54 PM, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:

...

Probably much harder to implement... but it might be more consistent to

have it as part of the file embedding syntax. E.g. [[file:foo.png|thumb|no-viewer|...]]

This would make our file inclusion syntax, which is an atrocity that

should not have been allowed to exist, even more complex. There is no way to tell whether a string is a parameter or the description unless you know what exactly the valid parameters are, so changes to them would force changes to every tool that tries to parse wikicode in a non-MediaWiki context.

Already the valid patameters vary by language (which can change arbitrarily via translatewiki), extensions installed (e.g. PagedTiffHandler adds some), and file type. So such tools are already pretty screwed.

File syntax is complex and icky, but it does have the benefit of keeping image display options consistently together. Having some image options triggered by one mechanism and some by another adds complexity too.

[various suggestions about having some sort of system picked out by users]

Imho - wiki syntax is already varrying a ton between different wikis. I would prefer avoiding further diversification (other than i18n) of wiki syntax unless there is a need for such per wiki customization. I dont see a need here.

--bawolff