On 23/01/2008, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote (on commons-l):
- There is definitely a trend of professional photographers to request
credits under the image in articles. This is what they are accustomed to. I (and a few others) think that we should make efforts to sensibilise our users to this. We can definitely afford to credit people in articles. This is a small concession which costs us very little and can benefit us greatly.
We can't promise that, and on en:wp it's general practice not to. *However*, where possible I like to credit the photographer in the caption anyway - particularly if they're a professional. (I like detailed captions in general - place, date, photographer.)
Many do get very stroppy about a lack of caption credit especially if it's CC-by - even if we're within the letter of the licence by only having the credit on the image page, it's IMO not only polite but often *useful to the reader* to note who took the picture.
[cc to wikien-l]
- d.
- d.
On Jan 23, 2008 6:43 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We can't promise that, and on en:wp it's general practice not to. *However*, where possible I like to credit the photographer in the caption anyway - particularly if they're a professional. (I like detailed captions in general - place, date, photographer.)
Many do get very stroppy about a lack of caption credit especially if it's CC-by - even if we're within the letter of the licence by only having the credit on the image page, it's IMO not only polite but often *useful to the reader* to note who took the picture.
Here we are again ... And again I find myself saying that it's not useful to have articles slathered with names promoting people thought. It creates inappropriate motivations for contributions (already spammers submit images to list their companies on the image pages), and unfair credit. No one wants to see the vanity edit warring that happens between images on articles further fulled by the use of an image also resulting in your name at the top of the most widely visited webpage for a subject.
But these concerns are not in conflict with providing *good* credit: We could provide a credits tab, a more obvious expand icon, or any one of a dozen other improvements.
We've talked about some of these before. Where are they?
On 23/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
But these concerns are not in conflict with providing *good* credit: We could provide a credits tab, a more obvious expand icon, or any one of a dozen other improvements. We've talked about some of these before. Where are they?
I believe it got bogged down in indecisive polls on a suitable replacement for the expand-box icon on images. What would it take (technically) to just replace that with a blue circle-i?
- d.
On 23/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
But these concerns are not in conflict with providing *good* credit: We could provide a credits tab, a more obvious expand icon, or any one of a dozen other improvements. We've talked about some of these before. Where are they?
I believe it got bogged down in indecisive polls on a suitable replacement for the expand-box icon on images. What would it take (technically) to just replace that with a blue circle-i?
And I just got yet another phone call from someone who wanted to reuse an image from Wikipedia but didn't realise you clicked on the picture to get to the image page. Fergoshsake, the two-rectangles "expand" icon is meaningless. (I mean this thing that's on every image: http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png - I suppose changing it would take changing the skin.)
- d.
On Jan 24, 2008 10:40 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And I just got yet another phone call from someone who wanted to reuse an image from Wikipedia but didn't realise you clicked on the picture to get to the image page.
Yep. These come into OTRS all the time too.
Fergoshsake, the two-rectangles "expand" icon is meaningless. (I mean this thing that's on every image: http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png - I suppose changing it would take changing the skin.)
Swapping out the file would be best, yes.
Otherwise, any sysop could set up some JS to find div.magnify img tags and rewrite the image to something else. "Something else" needs to be 15x11 px, though I suppose it could also be made larger if necessary. (an ugly nasty waste of client computation. Then again, it could be done that way for testing without causing wiki-war-3)
On 24/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 10:40 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And I just got yet another phone call from someone who wanted to reuse an image from Wikipedia but didn't realise you clicked on the picture to get to the image page.
Yep. These come into OTRS all the time too.
At least I didn't have to explain the concept ...
Fergoshsake, the two-rectangles "expand" icon is meaningless. (I mean this thing that's on every image: http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png - I suppose changing it would take changing the skin.)
Swapping out the file would be best, yes. Otherwise, any sysop could set up some JS to find div.magnify img tags and rewrite the image to something else. "Something else" needs to be 15x11 px, though I suppose it could also be made larger if necessary. (an ugly nasty waste of client computation. Then again, it could be done that way for testing without causing wiki-war-3)
I just did some experimentation on a local MediaWiki. A blue circle-i looks like rubbish (and, worse, non-obvious) below about 15px, so whatever expects 15x11 would need fixing too. I got a nice 15x15 circle-i, though (better than merely scaling an SVG).
- d.
On 24/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Swapping out the file would be best, yes. Otherwise, any sysop could set up some JS to find div.magnify img tags and rewrite the image to something else. "Something else" needs to be 15x11 px, though I suppose it could also be made larger if necessary. (an ugly nasty waste of client computation. Then again, it could be done that way for testing without causing wiki-war-3)
I just did some experimentation on a local MediaWiki. A blue circle-i looks like rubbish (and, worse, non-obvious) below about 15px, so whatever expects 15x11 would need fixing too. I got a nice 15x15 circle-i, though (better than merely scaling an SVG).
How about a circled + sign? Should be equally obvious.
[Some screenshots would be nice, too...]
On 24/01/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I just did some experimentation on a local MediaWiki. A blue circle-i looks like rubbish (and, worse, non-obvious) below about 15px, so whatever expects 15x11 would need fixing too. I got a nice 15x15 circle-i, though (better than merely scaling an SVG).
How about a circled + sign? Should be equally obvious.
circle-i = information (at least in English). Better even than the square-i Greg was using in the tests on Thebainer's subpage.
[Some screenshots would be nice, too...]
I'll put something on Thebainer's test page when I have spare Copious Free Time ...
- d.
And I just got yet another phone call from someone who wanted to reuse an image from Wikipedia but didn't realise you clicked on the picture to get to the image page.
*sigh* :) Anthony
User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 24/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/01/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I just did some experimentation on a local MediaWiki. A blue circle-i looks like rubbish (and, worse, non-obvious) below about 15px, so whatever expects 15x11 would need fixing too. I got a nice 15x15 circle-i, though (better than merely scaling an SVG).
How about a circled + sign? Should be equally obvious.
circle-i = information (at least in English). Better even than the square-i Greg was using in the tests on Thebainer's subpage.
[Some screenshots would be nice, too...]
I'll put something on Thebainer's test page when I have spare Copious Free Time ...
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 24/01/2008, AGK agkwiki@googlemail.com wrote:
And I just got yet another phone call from someone who wanted to reuse an image from Wikipedia but didn't realise you clicked on the picture to get to the image page.
*sigh* :) Anthony
Our image interface is less than obvious in all manner of important places. The uploading interface is horrible, the information on an image page is utterly confusing to an outsider seeing it for the first time, etc., etc. Commons has a wishlist THIS LONG and Brion is well aware of it ... but we have two paid developers, who also lead the sysadmins, and have no free time, so it'll take a wizard volunteer programmer with a good grasp of user interfaces. If you have one handy ...
- d.
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
But these concerns are not in conflict with providing *good* credit: We could provide a credits tab, a more obvious expand icon, or any one of a dozen other improvements. We've talked about some of these before. Where are they?
I believe it got bogged down in indecisive polls on a suitable replacement for the expand-box icon on images. What would it take (technically) to just replace that with a blue circle-i?
And I just got yet another phone call from someone who wanted to reuse an image from Wikipedia but didn't realise you clicked on the picture to get to the image page. Fergoshsake, the two-rectangles "expand" icon is meaningless. (I mean this thing that's on every image: http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png - I suppose changing it would take changing the skin.)
People interested about this simple solution to improve the visibility of credits are welcome to comment or vote for the following bug on MediaWiki bugzilla : https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13070
On 21/02/2008, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
People interested about this simple solution to improve the visibility of credits are welcome to comment or vote for the following bug on MediaWiki bugzilla : https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13070
After discussion in the bug about magnifier vs. circle-i, I've done a tentative example of both together. The proposal is to replace this:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png
- with something like this:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=4665
(In my experiments, I've found it difficult to make circle-i readable below about 15x15 px.)
Rather than use the bug for discussion, does the idea of a magnifier and circle-i together make anyone here throw up? That's not two things to click on, but one that looks like two, and that goes to the image page - giving a larger image and info on the photo.
- d.
David Gerard schreef:
Rather than use the bug for discussion, does the idea of a magnifier and circle-i together make anyone here throw up? That's not two things to click on, but one that looks like two, and that goes to the image page - giving a larger image and info on the photo.
I don't like it.
It looks like two links. I understand why this is desirable for casual visitors, but it's confusing to people who want to explore a bit more and who click both icons. And I expect I will be confused at times as well (Which icon should I click for the [[Image:]] page?) before remembering that it doesn't make any difference. It slows experienced users down.
I think it would work if you put a (very light) grey border around the two icons. That's just enough as a reminder that both link to the same page.
Eugene
On 23/02/2008, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
David Gerard schreef:
Rather than use the bug for discussion, does the idea of a magnifier and circle-i together make anyone here throw up? That's not two things to click on, but one that looks like two, and that goes to the image page - giving a larger image and info on the photo.
I don't like it.
It looks like two links. I understand why this is desirable for casual visitors, but it's confusing to people who want to explore a bit more and who click both icons. And I expect I will be confused at times as well (Which icon should I click for the [[Image:]] page?) before remembering that it doesn't make any difference. It slows experienced users down.
I think it would work if you put a (very light) grey border around the two icons. That's just enough as a reminder that both link to the same page.
Could we combine them? Magnifying glass with an i inside the circle of the lens... or would that be too cluttered?
On 23/02/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Could we combine them? Magnifying glass with an i inside the circle of the lens... or would that be too cluttered?
See the bug, there's an example of that there. In my casual and unscientific tests, two out of two experienced Wikipedia readers only noticed the magnifier, not the circle-i at all.
As I note in the bug: we need some proper UI testing on people who aren't Wikipedia editors. Perhaps regular readers, but not editors. The use case here is the casual reader who wants to know more about the image or get a larger copy.
- d.
David Gerard schreef:
As I note in the bug: we need some proper UI testing on people who aren't Wikipedia editors. Perhaps regular readers, but not editors. The use case here is the casual reader who wants to know more about the image or get a larger copy.
We need to test the image on editors as well. The quickest way to get to the image description page is to click on the image itself. For experienced editors (for me at least), the current zoom image is so inconspicuous and devoid of meaning, that it doesn't interfere with that.
As I said, presenting *two* more obvious ways to go to [[Image:...]] would slow down navigation for me. Please don't... (or I'll switch it off in my personal modern.css style sheet).
Eugene
Andrew Gray schreef:
Could we combine them? Magnifying glass with an i inside the circle of the lens... or would that be too cluttered?
An implementation of that idea can be seen here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Huji/Magnify
According to the bugzilla discussion at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13070 the combined icon will not get both meanings across. (See message #13 in particular.)
Eugene
On 1/24/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Here we are again ... And again I find myself saying that it's not useful to have articles slathered with names promoting people thought. It creates inappropriate motivations for contributions (already spammers submit images to list their companies on the image pages), and unfair credit. No one wants to see the vanity edit warring that
Spammers are submitting useful images? Woohoo!
Seriously, do you have an example?
Is the question of crediting people in article text not perhaps a question for the board? Do they have an opinion?
We've talked about some of these before. Where are they?
Yeah!
Steve
On 24/01/2008, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Is the question of crediting people in article text not perhaps a question for the board? Do they have an opinion?
Oh god no. The last thing the Board needs (or wants) to be handling is project-level editorial style decisions.
On 1/25/08, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Oh god no. The last thing the Board needs (or wants) to be handling is project-level editorial style decisions.
The question of attribution is a bit more than "project-level editorial style". It's like a softer form of advertising, which itself has been soundly ruled out for the forseeable future. And there's a fair point: would it be acceptable to see "Credit: Getty images" underneath an image? If so, what about "Credit: McDonalds"?
I think this issue may well be non-trivial enough to bother the board about.
Steve
On Jan 23, 2008 3:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
But these concerns are not in conflict with providing *good* credit: We could provide a credits tab, a more obvious expand icon, or any one of a dozen other improvements.
We've talked about some of these before. Where are they?
There's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thebainer/thumbtest
Michel Vuijlsteke
Contributing to wikipedia, commons, wikinews by donating images for the sake of personal promotion feels like it is in violation of the project goals. Wikimedia projects shouldn't be allowed to get spammed like that. We aren't that desperate.
- White Cat
On Jan 23, 2008 1:43 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote (on commons-l):
- There is definitely a trend of professional photographers to request
credits under the image in articles. This is what they are accustomed
to.
I (and a few others) think that we should make efforts to sensibilise
our
users to this. We can definitely afford to credit people in articles.
This
is a small concession which costs us very little and can benefit us
greatly.
We can't promise that, and on en:wp it's general practice not to. *However*, where possible I like to credit the photographer in the caption anyway - particularly if they're a professional. (I like detailed captions in general - place, date, photographer.)
Many do get very stroppy about a lack of caption credit especially if it's CC-by - even if we're within the letter of the licence by only having the credit on the image page, it's IMO not only polite but often *useful to the reader* to note who took the picture.
[cc to wikien-l]
d.
d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l