On your last point, most images on commons use the information
template. I think it makes authorship bloddy obvious. Do you agree?
If so the best solution is to move free images to commons and use the
information template.
On 8/29/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/26/07, Stephen Bain
<stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I've done some more mockups in a similar vein
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thebainer/thumbtest
These mockups are all achieved with wikitext (and a little HTML) but
obviously something like this would be implemented by way of a
MediaWiki message.
I really like these. I don't think you've quite hit the perfect
combination yet though, but you're close. Some thoughts:
- The copyright symbol is a good idea, as it screams out "This image
is not necessarily public domain"
- The little hand just adds clutter, and is confusing when you
actually have the mouse pointer over it
- The "i in a box" is good, but needs something more to make it
explicitly about the image.
- It should be obvious that the image can and should be clicked on.
- The (c) with the magnifying glass is sort of on the right track, but
really hard to see. Took me a while to realise that that's what it is.
Maybe a combination of the (C) and the (i) ? ("Copyright information"?
- or is that too cute?) A (C) with a small hypertext link saying
"credits"?
Note in any case that even clicking that link doesn't really solve
your problem: it's very hard to find the text that says "Photo taken
by sannse". We really need to rethink how we present that information,
so we have a single piece of text that says "This picture was taken by
Wikipedia user sannse. You can reuse this image as long as you
attribute her and follow [[these rules]]."
Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l