Dear Dan, Geni, Hay and Jan:
Thank you all for responding so quickly with your good suggestions!
Do any of these ideas resonate for you more than others? Have we missed anything else?
1. Ideas for a single class: .exclude .for-page-only .hide .media-reliant .media-secondary .media-navigational .nommw .noshow .unrelated
or ...
2. Ideas for multiple classes: .navigational .maintenance .award .protection
Which of these suggestions seem more practical to you?
Should we take this discussion onwiki? or do you think we can resolve it via email?
We would love to find a swift resolution together, so we can make this feature available sooner rather than later …
Much appreciated,
Fabrice
On May 12, 2014, at 1:43 PM, Jan Ainali jan.ainali@wikimedia.se wrote:
How about just .unrelated? Simple to understand, following the criteria you just mentioned. More human readable than something more technically correct such as .nommw
Med vänliga hälsningar, Jan Ainali
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 0729 - 67 29 48
Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör. Bli medlem.
On May 12, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Hay (Husky) huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
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 May 12, 2014, at 12:43 PM, dan-nl dan.entous.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
.not-multimedia
or maybe reverse the logic and only allow tagged items to appear in media viewer
.multimedia
with kind regards, dan
On May 12, 2014, at 21:32 , 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)
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
i may be mis-understanding the goal …
1, it looks like you want to distinguish between elements on a web page that should be viewable in mediaviewer vs those that should not.
2. you want to use a css class to distinguish these elements.
3. you mentioned that there may be future or other use cases and so you want a generic css class; what would the other use cases be?
if the idea is to distinguish between items that should be viewable in mediaviewer vs those that should not, then i like
.mediaviewer .mediaviewer-item
with kind regards, dan
On May 12, 2014, at 23:19 , Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Dan, Geni, Hay and Jan:
Thank you all for responding so quickly with your good suggestions!
Do any of these ideas resonate for you more than others? Have we missed anything else?
- Ideas for a single class:
.exclude .for-page-only .hide .media-reliant .media-secondary .media-navigational .nommw .noshow .unrelated
or ...
- Ideas for multiple classes:
.navigational .maintenance .award .protection
Which of these suggestions seem more practical to you?
Should we take this discussion onwiki? or do you think we can resolve it via email?
We would love to find a swift resolution together, so we can make this feature available sooner rather than later …
Much appreciated,
Fabrice
On May 12, 2014, at 1:43 PM, Jan Ainali jan.ainali@wikimedia.se wrote:
How about just .unrelated? Simple to understand, following the criteria you just mentioned. More human readable than something more technically correct such as .nommw
Med vänliga hälsningar, Jan Ainali
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 0729 - 67 29 48
Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör. Bli medlem.
On May 12, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Hay (Husky) huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
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 May 12, 2014, at 12:43 PM, dan-nl dan.entous.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
.not-multimedia
or maybe reverse the logic and only allow tagged items to appear in media viewer
.multimedia
with kind regards, dan
On May 12, 2014, at 21:32 , 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)
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Fabrice Florin Product Manager 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
Thanks, Dan.
The main goal is to tag images that are *not* suitable for display in Media Viewer (either because they are small, unrelated icons or flags — or because they do not display well in the current viewer).
Since most images are suitable for Media Viewer, I would not recommend requiring every image to be manually tagged for inclusion — but rather only tag the images that need to be excluded.
As for other use cases, it’s possible that some future applications (e.g. a slide-show maker) might also want to use this class to filter relevant images from an article. Hence the proposal to not make the name specific to Media Viewer, if that’s easy to do.
Hope this helps,
Fabrice
On May 12, 2014, at 2:47 PM, dan-nl dan.entous.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
i may be mis-understanding the goal …
1, it looks like you want to distinguish between elements on a web page that should be viewable in mediaviewer vs those that should not.
you want to use a css class to distinguish these elements.
you mentioned that there may be future or other use cases and so you want a generic css class; what would the other use cases be?
if the idea is to distinguish between items that should be viewable in mediaviewer vs those that should not, then i like
.mediaviewer .mediaviewer-item
with kind regards, dan
On May 12, 2014, at 23:19 , Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Dan, Geni, Hay and Jan:
Thank you all for responding so quickly with your good suggestions!
Do any of these ideas resonate for you more than others? Have we missed anything else?
- Ideas for a single class:
.exclude .for-page-only .hide .media-reliant .media-secondary .media-navigational .nommw .noshow .unrelated
or ...
- Ideas for multiple classes:
.navigational .maintenance .award .protection
Which of these suggestions seem more practical to you?
Should we take this discussion onwiki? or do you think we can resolve it via email?
We would love to find a swift resolution together, so we can make this feature available sooner rather than later …
Much appreciated,
Fabrice
On May 12, 2014, at 1:43 PM, Jan Ainali jan.ainali@wikimedia.se wrote:
How about just .unrelated? Simple to understand, following the criteria you just mentioned. More human readable than something more technically correct such as .nommw
Med vänliga hälsningar, Jan Ainali
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 0729 - 67 29 48
Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör. Bli medlem.
On May 12, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Hay (Husky) huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
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 May 12, 2014, at 12:43 PM, dan-nl dan.entous.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
.not-multimedia
or maybe reverse the logic and only allow tagged items to appear in media viewer
.multimedia
with kind regards, dan
On May 12, 2014, at 21:32 , 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)
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Fabrice Florin Product Manager 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
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:47 PM, dan-nl dan.entous.wikimedia@gmail.comwrote:
i may be mis-understanding the goal …
1, it looks like you want to distinguish between elements on a web page that should be viewable in mediaviewer vs those that should not.
you want to use a css class to distinguish these elements.
you mentioned that there may be future or other use cases and so you
want a generic css class; what would the other use cases be?
if the idea is to distinguish between items that should be viewable in mediaviewer vs those that should not, then i like
.mediaviewer .mediaviewer-item
Basically
- we want to distinguish between images for which MediaViewer is a good user experience vs. those for which it is not - we want to do it in such a way that places the community in control (CSS classes are an easy way to do this, there could be others) - it should be as generic as possible as MediaViewer might not be the only tool that has to make this decision (is the image suitable for HoverCards/navigation popups? should it be included in the print/PDF view? etc) - should not be too much work for the community to do it (e.g. adding a CSS class to every article maintenance template is probably easy since they tend to use common frameworks; adding a parameter to the thumbnail wikicode in every such template is probably not so easy).
Some things that should be excluded: - things that don't really belong to the article content (such as maintenance templates, icons in signatures on a talk page) - things that belong to the article but are technically too tricky to work with MediaViewer (e.g. various CSS map hacks) - things that belong to the article but MediaViewer does not offer a good user experience for them (some people suggested very small images)
One option could be to leave the details to each wiki community, e.g. read a jQuery selector from a MediaWiki page or a JS variable, or even use a hook.
On 12 May 2014 22:19, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
Should we take this discussion onwiki? or do you think we can resolve it via email?
Yes, I don't really understand why this was not on-wiki all along, it seems more natural as a way of getting views from Commons end users.
I vaguely know these list discussions go on, but find them much harder to get a sense of, and less appealing for me to express a view in, compared to a threaded discussion or !vote on-wiki.
Fae
I'd recommend avoiding classes specific to MultimediaViewer for this purpose.
The semantic intent here is to mark images that are not considered part of regular article content. These would be presentational elements like user interface icons, images part of a larger construct (such as clipped images, map pins etc.). It's not at all related to MultimediaViewer and is useful for other tools as well. Don't forget that what MMV is doing is by no means new. Gadgets like these have existed for years and people will continue to use and develop these. This is good; we want people to stay inspired (and even competitive in a way). These gadgets would greatly benefit from a simple class name filter to replace their current approach (lots of exceptions for arbitrary class names, and individual patterns like "Clear crystal" icon).
Making this MMV-specific would give MMV special treatment resulting in hacks and maintenance burdens we don't want. A class like no-mmv" masks the real intent. In my experience that would discourage communication between users and developers when issues arise. Not the users that read it here, but the users that copy it further down the line; whom won't know its purpose.
Making it specific to the idea of a "viewer" (e.g. "no-viewer", "viewer-exclude", or "for-page-only") is better in my opinion, but only marginally so. I'd recommend aiming for something that reflects what it is and allows separation of concerns. Then have MMV use that in its filters. This may mean we'll need two instead of one if the types of images in this category are that different, but that would imho be a good thing.
— Krinkle
whats needed is something that is simple on the front end to use, to wiki-code and maintain it doesnt matter how good a gadget is if its to hard for people to work with they will switch off, either through preferences, other gadgets or altogether.
I know it may sound horrid from a programmers perspective but priority must be for simple front end solutions that require minimal maintenance by content creators, a switch such as [[File:Foo.jpg|*noview*|.....]] is the easiest solution, or alternatively [[File:Foo.png|icon|.....]] where icon also sets the image to a preselected size of 50px and can only render upto 100px
On 14 May 2014 20:50, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
I'd recommend avoiding classes specific to MultimediaViewer for this purpose.
The semantic intent here is to mark images that are not considered part of regular article content. These would be presentational elements like user interface icons, images part of a larger construct (such as clipped images, map pins etc.). It's not at all related to MultimediaViewer and is useful for other tools as well. Don't forget that what MMV is doing is by no means new. Gadgets like these have existed for years and people will continue to use and develop these. This is good; we want people to stay inspired (and even competitive in a way). These gadgets would greatly benefit from a simple class name filter to replace their current approach (lots of exceptions for arbitrary class names, and individual patterns like "Clear crystal" icon).
Making this MMV-specific would give MMV special treatment resulting in hacks and maintenance burdens we don't want. A class like no-mmv" masks the real intent. In my experience that would discourage communication between users and developers when issues arise. Not the users that read it here, but the users that copy it further down the line; whom won't know its purpose.
Making it specific to the idea of a "viewer" (e.g. "no-viewer", "viewer-exclude", or "for-page-only") is better in my opinion, but only marginally so. I'd recommend aiming for something that reflects what it is and allows separation of concerns. Then have MMV use that in its filters. This may mean we'll need two instead of one if the types of images in this category are that different, but that would imho be a good thing.
— Krinkle
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
Making it specific to the idea of a "viewer" (e.g. "no-viewer", "viewer-exclude", or "for-page-only") is better in my opinion, but only marginally so. I'd recommend aiming for something that reflects what it is and allows separation of concerns. Then have MMV use that in its filters. This may mean we'll need two instead of one if the types of images in this category are that different, but that would imho be a good thing.
We would like to wrap this issue up soon; using a "noviewer" class seems to be the best proposal so far. I do agree with you in theory, and I would be happy to use more semantic class names if someone proposed good ones, but I don't have any idea myself what they should be.
Hi guys,
We’ve been discussing the various proposals on this thread and don’t see a strong consensus yet.
This lack of consensus in our email discussions so far may suggest that our original proposal to use a separate class may not be the best solution for this issue.
We are growing concerned that using a separate class (e.g. ’noviewer’) could introduce more confusion and inconsistency, with some editors disabling certain images in some places, but not in others.
So we would like to propose a simpler approach, which would be to use existing methods to disable Media Viewer for some images, as proposed in the FAQ draft below.
What do you guys think of that approach?
At Fae’s suggestion, I started an onwiki discussion for this proposal:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Multimedia/About_Media_Viewer#How_to_dis...
Feel free to respond onwiki or via email, as you prefer.
Thanks for your guidance :)
Fabrice
________________________
PROPOSED HELP FAQ
==How can I disable Media Viewer for unrelated or unsuitable images?== Sometimes, Media Viewer displays images that are confusing for our users. This includes metadata images (e.g. small icons, flags), which are not related to the page's topic; other images do not render well and are not suitable for Media Viewer (such as maps using weird CSS/JS tricks, or images which use a clipping template).
We invite editors to prevent these images from appearing in Media Viewer, using one of these two methods: * For metadata images, simply add this "metadata" class for unrelated images like icons or flags: <code><nowiki><span class="metadata">[[File:Foo.jpg]]</span></nowiki></code> * For images that are not metadata, but which don’t really render well in Media Viewer, consider using a '[[:w:Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#Images_that_link_somewhere_other_than_the_image_description_page|link parameter]]' to disable them in Media Viewer: <code><nowiki>[[File:Foo.jpg|link=]]</nowiki></code> <br> To enable users to access file information, consider adding a link in the file’s caption, so people can still access its file information page: <code><nowiki>|[[:File:Foo.jpg|Learn more]]</nowiki></code>
Other methods may be available to exclude images in Media Viewer, but we encourage community editors to start marking metadata images right away, using the first method above, since that is work that should be taking place anyway.
(End of proposed FAQ)
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Fabrice Florin fflorin@wikimedia.org wrote:
<code><nowiki><span class="metadata">[[File:Foo.jpg]]</span></nowiki></code>
- For images that are not metadata, but which don’t really render well in
Media Viewer, consider using a '[[:w:Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#Images_that_link_somewhere_other_than_the_image_description_page|link parameter]]' to disable them in Media Viewer: <code><nowiki>[[File:Foo.jpg|link=]]</nowiki></code> <br>
I think that's a misuse of the link parameter and doesn't really help in allowing users to separate between 'metadata images' and 'non-metadata images'. The 'noviewer' class, however flawed it might be, is better than this solution IMO.
-- Hay