Hello all,
I think we all saw them. Clickable images. Very usefull, especially on the main page etc, but there are some slight problems. You can not access the license-information without digging in the sourcecode of the page. And that might be in a template in a template etc. So that's why I am wondering:
Should it be allowed at all to make images clickable, as people cannot check the license-information?
Or should it maybe not be allowed to make images clickable when the licence requires that attribution should be given to the author? (Like GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA etc) So it should be allowed with PD?
This is not because I want to hurry this through, but would like to share some thoughts on this behalf. Maybe it should be wise to make this "global" policy when we could come to a clear result. I am no lawyer myself, but I just have the feeling that we are very much searching the border of what is allowed with these clickimage-templates etc. (There is also some function in MediaWiki that shows one image but links to another, btw, the discussion is the same there)
Greetings, hoping for fruitfull discussion,
Lodewijk
Hello
On 9/9/06, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I think we all saw them. Clickable images. Very usefull, especially on the main page etc, but there are some slight problems. You can not access the license-information without digging in the sourcecode of the page. And that might be in a template in a template etc. So that's why I am wondering:
Should it be allowed at all to make images clickable, as people cannot check the license-information?
AFAIK, these clickable images are mainly used to direct either to other Wikimedia sister projects, or to really big portals. In the first case, the logos are the property of the Wikimedia Foundation. Is there any issue with not giving the license-information?
In the second case, the images are used to direct people to pages which are symbolized by these images. I suggest the target page includes the image linking to it (classic image include, that links to the image description page). Thus, if people want to know the license-information, they have to click twice, but it's easier than to dig in templates.
g.
Hi,
thank you for your reaction. I think your idea of putting the image in the page it points to is a good idea. But I would like to broaden the discussion a bit. We are now thinking about where it is used, and how we can talk it right. I think we should actually think about how we can use it in the broadest sense, so we can afterwards find out when we can use it. The point is that people will always come up with new uses of the template, and I think we should somehow state clear what is allowed and what not. I only know of the use in main pages, but it is also used broader I guess. It could be used for flags to link to countries, or for roads, to link the the article about it. (Like A1, A2 etc in http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam ) So what are your thoughts about it when you forget about the main page, and think in general?
Lodewijk
2006/9/9, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com:
Hello
On 9/9/06, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I think we all saw them. Clickable images. Very usefull, especially on the main page etc, but there are some slight problems. You can not access the license-information without digging in the sourcecode of the page. And that might be in a template in a template etc. So that's why I am wondering:
Should it be allowed at all to make images clickable, as people cannot check the license-information?
AFAIK, these clickable images are mainly used to direct either to other Wikimedia sister projects, or to really big portals. In the first case, the logos are the property of the Wikimedia Foundation. Is there any issue with not giving the license-information?
In the second case, the images are used to direct people to pages which are symbolized by these images. I suggest the target page includes the image linking to it (classic image include, that links to the image description page). Thus, if people want to know the license-information, they have to click twice, but it's easier than to dig in templates.
g.
-- Guillaume Paumier Disciplus Simplex http://fr.wikipedia.org : Resistance is futile — You will be assimilated. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9/9/06, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
thank you for your reaction. I think your idea of putting the image in the page it points to is a good idea. But I would like to broaden the discussion a bit. We are now thinking about where it is used, and how we can talk it right. I think we should actually think about how we can use it in the broadest sense, so we can afterwards find out when we can use it. The point is that people will always come up with new uses of the template, and I think we should somehow state clear what is allowed and what not. I only know of the use in main pages, but it is also used broader I guess. It could be used for flags to link to countries, or for roads, to link the the article about it. (Like A1, A2 etc in http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam ) So what are your thoughts about it when you forget about the main page, and think in general?
Lodewijk
Actually, it seems your example about motorways isn't an image but a formatted text ;)
Anyway, you're right to say we should make things clear. My opinion is: clickable images should be avoided. The general policy is the license-information should be available by simply clicking the image. First-time visitors are a bit surprised by this, but if we start mixing clickable and non-clickable images (that means respectively images pointing to an article/portal and images pointing to their description page), the situation will soon become a huge mess. Otherwise, people don't know where they're going to land when clicking an image.
In a nutshell: avoid clickable images.
g.
Hoi, There are two things to consider; * Pictures in our projects should be Free. This means that the pictures should be usable in any context. * Because many of our projects are not Free for simple re-use, there is a need to do stupid contortions by always show the license.
It is imho better to sort out the underlying problem than to prevent things that improve usability. I think is really bad that it is now suggested not to have clickable images. Thanks, GerardM
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
On 9/9/06, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
thank you for your reaction. I think your idea of putting the image in the page it points to is a good idea. But I would like to broaden the discussion a bit. We are now thinking about where it is used, and how we can talk it right. I think we should actually think about how we can use it in the broadest sense, so we can afterwards find out when we can use it. The point is that people will always come up with new uses of the template, and I think we should somehow state clear what is allowed and what not. I only know of the use in main pages, but it is also used broader I guess. It could be used for flags to link to countries, or for roads, to link the the article about it. (Like A1, A2 etc in http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam ) So what are your thoughts about it when you forget about the main page, and think in general?
Lodewijk
Actually, it seems your example about motorways isn't an image but a formatted text ;)
Anyway, you're right to say we should make things clear. My opinion is: clickable images should be avoided. The general policy is the license-information should be available by simply clicking the image. First-time visitors are a bit surprised by this, but if we start mixing clickable and non-clickable images (that means respectively images pointing to an article/portal and images pointing to their description page), the situation will soon become a huge mess. Otherwise, people don't know where they're going to land when clicking an image.
In a nutshell: avoid clickable images.
g.
Sounds nice, but afaik almost every licence used demands to give attribution. I think it is not very likely that we can alter the image-policy in such a way that we don't need to give attribution for every image (we are not even able to get all free images, as en: is still allowing fair use, so all PD-like is something we can easily forget imho) So we *have* to think about clickable images, however I agree it would be nice if we wouldn't have to because of all PD.
Lodewijk
2006/9/9, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, There are two things to consider;
- Pictures in our projects should be Free. This means that the pictures
should be usable in any context.
- Because many of our projects are not Free for simple re-use, there is
a need to do stupid contortions by always show the license.
It is imho better to sort out the underlying problem than to prevent things that improve usability. I think is really bad that it is now suggested not to have clickable images. Thanks, GerardM
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
On 9/9/06, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
thank you for your reaction. I think your idea of putting the image in the page it points to is a good idea. But I would like to broaden the discussion a bit. We are now thinking about where it is used, and how we can talk it right. I think we should actually think about how we can use it in the broadest sense, so we can afterwards find out when we can use it. The point is that people will always come up with new uses of the template, and I think we should somehow state clear what is allowed and what not. I only know of the use in main pages, but it is also used broader I guess. It could be used for flags to link to countries, or for roads, to link the the article about it. (Like A1, A2 etc in http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam ) So what are your thoughts about it when you forget about the main page, and think in general?
Lodewijk
Actually, it seems your example about motorways isn't an image but a formatted text ;)
Anyway, you're right to say we should make things clear. My opinion is: clickable images should be avoided. The general policy is the license-information should be available by simply clicking the image. First-time visitors are a bit surprised by this, but if we start mixing clickable and non-clickable images (that means respectively images pointing to an article/portal and images pointing to their description page), the situation will soon become a huge mess. Otherwise, people don't know where they're going to land when clicking an image.
In a nutshell: avoid clickable images.
g.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 09/09/06, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
So we *have* to think about clickable images, however I agree it would be nice if we wouldn't have to because of all PD.
In all those words, it's not clear (1) what you are asking for (in a sentence) (2) on what basis (in a sentence).
- d.
Hoi, As we have seperate pages with the image where we have all the information we need to attribute these pictures already. When there is a need to have direct attribution from the picture itself, we could go the extra distance by allowing for right and left clicking. With right clicking bringing extra information like attribution information.
If there is a need for a solution, think towards the solution in stead of thinking why it cannot be done. By the way if anything your argument is an argument against images that can not be freely displayed and copied.
Thanks, GerardM
effe iets anders wrote:
Sounds nice, but afaik almost every licence used demands to give attribution. I think it is not very likely that we can alter the image-policy in such a way that we don't need to give attribution for every image (we are not even able to get all free images, as en: is still allowing fair use, so all PD-like is something we can easily forget imho) So we *have* to think about clickable images, however I agree it would be nice if we wouldn't have to because of all PD.
Lodewijk
2006/9/9, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, There are two things to consider;
- Pictures in our projects should be Free. This means that the pictures
should be usable in any context.
- Because many of our projects are not Free for simple re-use, there is
a need to do stupid contortions by always show the license.
It is imho better to sort out the underlying problem than to prevent things that improve usability. I think is really bad that it is now suggested not to have clickable images. Thanks, GerardM
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
On 9/9/06, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
thank you for your reaction. I think your idea of putting the image in the page it points to is a good idea. But I would like to broaden the discussion a bit. We are now thinking about where it is used, and how we can talk it right. I think we should actually think about how we can use it in the broadest sense, so we can afterwards find out when we can use it. The point is that people will always come up with new uses of the template, and I think we should somehow state clear what is allowed and what not. I only know of the use in main pages, but it is also used broader I guess. It could be used for flags to link to countries, or for roads, to link the the article about it. (Like A1, A2 etc in http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam ) So what are your thoughts about it when you forget about the main page, and think in general?
Lodewijk
Actually, it seems your example about motorways isn't an image but a formatted text ;)
Anyway, you're right to say we should make things clear. My opinion is: clickable images should be avoided. The general policy is the license-information should be available by simply clicking the image. First-time visitors are a bit surprised by this, but if we start mixing clickable and non-clickable images (that means respectively images pointing to an article/portal and images pointing to their description page), the situation will soon become a huge mess. Otherwise, people don't know where they're going to land when clicking an image.
In a nutshell: avoid clickable images.
g.
On 9/9/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
By the way if anything your argument is an argument against images that can not be freely displayed and copied.
A requirement for attribution is not a prohibition against free use and redistribution.
Attribution, by itself, is a basic activity which any honest and ethical distributor will be careful to perform with due care even when not required to by copyright licenses.
So long as the default state of copyright is all rights reserved mandatory attribution is a fundamental requirement for any license which attempts to use copyright to prevent content from being removed from the commons. If the attribution and at least basic licensing information are not brought along with the work it becomes far too likely that the information will be lost and the work will fall out of availability to the public.
The attribution and licensing data provided one click away already causes us a little resistance from some photographers who would rather see a distracting by-line attached to every illustration of theirs. What we do today is uniform on all of our pages (with a few exceptions, for example the frwiki main page), and is consistent with our behavior for text. It is likely the minimal acceptable thing we can do both from both the perspective of license conformance and from the perspective of behaving honestly. Hiding the attribution behind multiclick secret handshakes just isn't going to fly.
I think it is important that we keep any discussion centered on the actual problem: Our image behavior is surprising when we use images as parts of navigational elements. This isn't an issue over free content, and any attempt to turn the discussion into a crusade to establish a new (and ultimately self defeating) definition of free content is just going to be a waste of all our time.
Hoi, Thank you for selective snipping, in this way a solution to your long argument was removed. To recapitulate, we can have options for under the left mouse click. Think solutions please. Thanks, GerardM
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 9/9/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
By the way if anything your argument is an argument against images that can not be freely displayed and copied.
A requirement for attribution is not a prohibition against free use and redistribution.
Attribution, by itself, is a basic activity which any honest and ethical distributor will be careful to perform with due care even when not required to by copyright licenses.
So long as the default state of copyright is all rights reserved mandatory attribution is a fundamental requirement for any license which attempts to use copyright to prevent content from being removed from the commons. If the attribution and at least basic licensing information are not brought along with the work it becomes far too likely that the information will be lost and the work will fall out of availability to the public.
The attribution and licensing data provided one click away already causes us a little resistance from some photographers who would rather see a distracting by-line attached to every illustration of theirs. What we do today is uniform on all of our pages (with a few exceptions, for example the frwiki main page), and is consistent with our behavior for text. It is likely the minimal acceptable thing we can do both from both the perspective of license conformance and from the perspective of behaving honestly. Hiding the attribution behind multiclick secret handshakes just isn't going to fly.
I think it is important that we keep any discussion centered on the actual problem: Our image behavior is surprising when we use images as parts of navigational elements. This isn't an issue over free content, and any attempt to turn the discussion into a crusade to establish a new (and ultimately self defeating) definition of free content is just going to be a waste of all our time.
On 10/09/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for selective snipping, in this way a solution to your long argument was removed. To recapitulate, we can have options for under the left mouse click. Think solutions please.
I don't see [[:en:mystery meat navigation]] or requiring the user to have a computer with a mouse - let alone a specifically two or more button mouse - as a likely solution to anything for Wikimedia or MediaWiki.
I'm still after the one-sentence statements of the original poster's problem and suggested solutions.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I don't see [[:en:mystery meat navigation]] or requiring the user to have a computer with a mouse - let alone a specifically two or more button mouse - as a likely solution to anything for Wikimedia or MediaWiki.
A mouse is notable as a mystery meat in restaurants of a certain class.
Ec
On 9/9/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for selective snipping, in this way a solution to your long argument was removed. To recapitulate, we can have options for under the left mouse click. Think solutions please.
If you make clicking on the image do the expected thing for navigation uses, then you obscure the attribution. Hiding the attribution behind an abnormal procedure would be a failure to provide attribution, hiding the navigational use behind an abnormal procedure would fail to aid navigation. I did address this directly in my reply.
Further, it would be quite infuriating and not at all user friendly for Wikipedia to further override the browsers normal behavior. (making right click, or modifier-click (recall not all computers have two mouse buttons) do something other than bring up the browsers menu)... Not to mention the accessibility problems, and browser compatibility issues.
Some time back (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-May/035663.html) I'd proposed we simply create a new type of image tag such as:
[[Imagelink:Foo.jpg|100px|Foo page]]
Here is an example of what such a tag would look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/example
No one seemed to oppose the idea, but no one implemented it either...
I believe this would be an adequate solution for the semi-navigation images which are used on portals.
Pure navgational images are another matter. But should probably be solved by just calling them from the site's CSS.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 9/9/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for selective snipping, in this way a solution to your long argument was removed. To recapitulate, we can have options for under the left mouse click. Think solutions please.
If you make clicking on the image do the expected thing for navigation uses, then you obscure the attribution. Hiding the attribution behind an abnormal procedure would be a failure to provide attribution, hiding the navigational use behind an abnormal procedure would fail to aid navigation. I did address this directly in my reply.
If the current way of providing attribution does not work because of a need to be innovative than we need to change our way in which we attribute. Currently we do attribute by having a "click through" to the image page. We could have in a similar way as we currently do the citations have footnotes with pictures. These footnotes would consist of a name and a license identification and a link to the image page. I would even be in favour of having a separate tab with the citations because both citations and other comments detract from reading the article.
Further, it would be quite infuriating and not at all user friendly for Wikipedia to further override the browsers normal behavior. (making right click, or modifier-click (recall not all computers have two mouse buttons) do something other than bring up the browsers menu)... Not to mention the accessibility problems, and browser compatibility issues.
Why would it infuriate you? There are many applications that support these kind of things. Denying this is equally infuriating because it prevents you in thinking what you can do. Browser compatibility .. sure they are .. one of the best things about the automatic update procedures of Firefox and Internet Exlorer is that they replace the old versions and thereby remove the need to support many old incompatible browsers. People that do not have a mouse or have a text only browser have a big problem on the web. Our software could do much better in supporting the visually impaired if we spend effort in doing so. Preventing the use of pictures as a navigational aid is not the best way, it is ducking that problem.
Some time back (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-May/035663.html) I'd proposed we simply create a new type of image tag such as:
[[Imagelink:Foo.jpg|100px|Foo page]]
Here is an example of what such a tag would look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/example
I had a look, I think it is an effort but I think it clutters the total image of the page up. I would prefer to use part of what you have done there and link it to a footnote. Oh, and nobody having implemented it when you proposed something ? That is the norm not the exception.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9/10/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If the current way of providing attribution does not work because of a need to be innovative than we need to change our way in which we attribute. Currently we do attribute by having a "click through" to the image page. We could have in a similar way as we currently do the citations have footnotes with pictures. These footnotes would consist of a name and a license identification and a link to the image page. I would even be in favour of having a separate tab with the citations because both citations and other comments detract from reading the article.
All I can think of is 50 pages of attribution at the bottom of an article, including lovely names like "throbbing monster cock"... if images are attributed with footnotes it would obviously make sense to do the same for text...
At hacking days I suggested a 'credits' page as a possible use for multiple 'talk' namespaces.... So sure, I agree that a credits page of sorts might make sense... but thats a bigger issue than clickable images.
Why would it infuriate you? There are many applications that support these kind of things. Denying this is equally infuriating because it prevents you in thinking what you can do.
Because it's not acceptable for my browser to massively change its behavior in strange and surprising ways just because I've navigated over to another website.
Browser compatibility .. sure they are .. one of the best things about the automatic update procedures of Firefox and Internet Exlorer is that they replace the old versions and thereby remove the need to support many old incompatible browsers. People that do not have a mouse or have a text only browser have a big problem on the web. Our software could do much better in supporting the visually impaired if we spend effort in doing so. Preventing the use of pictures as a navigational aid is not the best way, it is ducking that problem.
You're creating a false dichotomy. We have a fair degree of accessability not because we've avoided images for navigation (in fact, we have many images for navigation) but because we've not installed bizarre hacks like using javascript to rework the operation of the mouse buttons.
The need to support older browsers is long from dead. ... this is perhaps becoming too much technical trivia for foundation-l.
I had a look, I think it is an effort but I think it clutters the total image of the page up. I would prefer to use part of what you have done there and link it to a footnote. Oh, and nobody having implemented it when you proposed something ? That is the norm not the exception.
And link what to a footnote? The image? if you link the image to a footnote you are effectively back to the same counterintutive behavior we have today... or do you mean the text under the image? ... if you mean the text what is the advantage of using the footnote? as the text would still clutter the page.
My comment on it not being implemented was intended to balance my statement the no one objected (i.e. they did not find it too compelling either). I don't believe that I understand the intention of your comment...
On 9/9/06, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I think we all saw them. Clickable images.
Er, yes, however it is not clear to me if you're referring to any new technical feature? I'm only familiar with the [[Template:Click]] hack used on the English Wikipedia, which has been around since December 2005 and does not work in all browsers. The relevant Bugzilla entry is http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539 and there is no indication that it has been fixed. Am I missing something? If you're referring to [[Template:Click]], I advise against using it for compatibility reasons. After all, clickable images have been supported in web browsers for a while ;-); resorting to CSS hacks to implement them seems barely justifiable.
There's been a lot of discussion already about how navigational images could be implemented while preserving image credit. The best strategy I've seen would be to have an extension, Special:Mediacredits, which, called with a page title as a parameter, would transclude all the description pages of the images and other media used on that page. A page-dependent link to the Special:Imagecredits page would then be inserted into the sidebar and/or page footer.
I don't think images that function as links to other pages necessarily represent a usability problem. After all, thumbnails normally also have a little "zoom" icon, which creates the expectation that clicking the image gives a larger version (which it does). Navigational images do not have this "zoom" icon, so the reader expectation is more likely to be that they take you to another page, which, however, they currently do not.
So I think the current use of images on the Main Pages, in infoboxes, etc. in fact represents a usability problem that could be addressed with a clean implementation of images as links. In fact, it's especially bad on the English Wikipedia, where clicking a frontpage photo like the Space Shuttle not only takes me to an image description page, it also shows me a complex warning:
This image has been temporarily uploaded as a crop from Image:STS-115 Launch.jpg so that its subject can be easily visible at a thumb scale while on the Main Page. For licensing information, please view the main image description. Images on the main page are protected due to their high visibility. Please discuss any necessary changes on the discussion page. Administrators: please speedy delete this file once it is definitely off the Main Page.
Thousands of readers see confusing messages like this when they expect to see articles. That cannot be a good thing.
Erik Moeller wrote:
There's been a lot of discussion already about how navigational images could be implemented while preserving image credit. The best strategy I've seen would be to have an extension, Special:Mediacredits, which, called with a page title as a parameter, would transclude all the description pages of the images and other media used on that page. A page-dependent link to the Special:Imagecredits page would then be inserted into the sidebar and/or page footer.
That's exactly what I intended to propose before reading the last email of this thread-your's ;)
A *real* meta page could be useful IMO. The user/reader would find many useful information there: - a notice about GFDL (text) and "how to re-use our content" (maybe with the famous list of ten first editors required by the GFDL, automated?) - thumbnails of all images/videos/audios of the article, with licence logos (for it's handy once you're used to see them) and links toward info pages - the page could be used to itemize meta informations currently nested on the article text form, such as interwikis and so on (a good thing would be to allow editors to write such meta tag while editing the article text, but MediaWiki would move them from this article-text db record to the article-meta record. And maybe add an option in Preferences, like "show me the meta form while editing"...) - ideas?
What do you think?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org