Hi,
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, at 10:12, Risker wrote:
Well, hold on here.
On 17 August 2014 19:55, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think it is also a problem to look at this in
terms of "bugs." I don't
think you can retrofit good design into something that has a variety of
substantial problems, by merely "squashing bugs." You might say that is the
wiki way, but it is widely known that some tasks are better suited than
others to ad hoc collaborative processes.
Given the current use of bugzilla, which doesn't limit itself to bugs but
also feature requests and enhancements over the base functionality, calling
everything reported using bugzilla a "bug" is incorrect and inappropriate.
In this case, we have a broad range of issues:
* does it let the reader know they can help improve the page or upload
another photo
The Commons/File pages don't do that, why would you expect this software to
do it?
It does. There is an Edit button at the top, and an Upload button at the left.
* does it reflect copyright holders' licenses
accurately and effectively
Agree this is important. Do you have any evidence that it is any less
accurate than the Commons/File pages?
* does it adequately respect the privacy of the
subjects of photos
The mere fact of the image being used on an article anywhere on a Wikimedia
project suggests that this problem is in the actual usage, not in the
software being used to display more information and detail in the image.
If you believe that this is a serious issue, then it should be addressed
where 100% of readers can see it, not in a subpage viewed only by the
limited number of readers who click on the image. It's not a Media Viewer
problem, it's an image usage problem.
Showing description is important for privacy of subject of photo in some cases. I.e. if I
kill a cat for a movie and someone takes a picture, I should be able to tell readers that
I'm doing this for a movie. The long description usually does so, if needed. Otherwise
the readers might perceive that doing this is my usual activity.
This is probably not the original issue in mind of the first folk who mentioned privacy
two paragraphs up there, but that's the first thing I can think of.
Another thing is slideshows. "The Big Pictures" website lets people browse
pictures with long descriptions. We have galleries, and MV's left/right arrows. Why
not make something in the middle, with both a long description/caption, and these
left/right arrows?
* does it reflect a "look and feel"
that we feel OK about and is consistent
with the rest of the software
etc. etc.
What problems are you seeing here? Spell it out, rather than making vague
suggestions that there is an issue.
MV is inconsistent, because other pages (history, talk) still force a page reload, for
instance, and returning from them back to an article isn't as easy as one 'X'
button.
Fixing one "bug" may well lead to other bugs, or negatively impact those
already reported. What is needed, I believe, is a well-facilitated process
to identify the problems and the best solutions. This is not easy to do and
takes time. But I think the WMF has (not for lack of trying) managed to do
a very bad job of that with this software product, and with many software
products in the last few years. That does not mean it is impossible to do
it that way, only that those specific efforts were insufficient.
Why is this a Media Viewer issue? This is a problem for all types of
software on all types of platforms, and is a challenge even for IT
departments hundreds of times the size of the WMF. I cannot think of any
software I have used in the last 20 years that has not had "bugs" or
unsatisfactory UI elements or seems to miss a functionality I'd like to
have. It is unreasonable to hold a comparatively very small organization
to a standard that can't even be met by IT giants.
Risker/Anne
No comment on this one.
svetlana