On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Daniel Zahn <dzahn(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Maybe we could have
"large","medium","small" etc as aliases for
standard/popular sizes to encourage using less of the non-standard
ones?
I kinda like this. It would also be nice if simply including an image
defaulted to some sane size, even without using explicit "|thumb".
In fact, we should think about just redoing how images get included in the
first place maybe. :P
I'd kind of like to see something like this:
{{#media:Foobar.jpg}} <- default to a nice size, displayed in some
nice-looking way suitable to the output. Sane framing and positioning
typical for most usages.
{{#media:Foobar.jpg|caption=Hello this is my caption about [[stuff]].
Enjoy!}} <- caption should probably be an explicitly named parameter
* Consider having *no size option* at all. :)
* Definitely don't have "left" "right" or "center"
options.
* Consider making it easy to collect multiple related photos together, like
<gallery>.
Or maybe we should just use <gallery> more aggressively and make it a
billion times prettier...
For the more icon-like uses, maybe an explicit inline-media function:
{{#inline-media:Foobar.svg|24x24px}}
Anyway.... this needs more thought. But for a lot of images, we don't
really *need* to be manually specifying every detail of their layout. It
feels like it would be nicer to say "stuff these photos, with these
captions, into this section of the article" and let the wiki deal with
laying them out.
Note that in mobile/tablet contexts it's also very handy to be able to
extract just the photos and provide them for separate browsing; this has
influenced my thinking on this for sure.
-- brion