I think the current image handling is slightly messed up, for the following reasons:
1) There are too many different ways to link small/large versions.
a) There are usability problems with Brion's suggested approach of including the larger version of an image on the image page:
- The headline may say something like image_small.jpg whereas the actual image displayed is large - Clicking through a second time leads to another (usually empty) page - Captions effectively have to be entered up to three times
2) Users have to go to too much effort in order to create small versions of images. This is not something that researchers and authors should have to waste time with. It also impedes uploading of high resolution images, which can really hurt us when we start thinking about a printed edition of Wikipedia.
3) Content of image pages is neglected because it is "hidden" most of the time. Many people treat image descriptions like changelog entries (relatively carelessly).
The fact that it even took me a while to understand the current handling of images doesn't bode well for the usability of the concept.
I propose the following changes: --------------------------------
1) As suggested earlier, an image page should always display the image it refers to.
2) Smaller versions of images should be auto-generated in a separate directory similar to the math/ directory used for texvc's images. The small versions would be viewed on the article where the [[Image]] tag is included, whereas the image would link to the original size version.
We could use the GD library functions for creating thumbnails. See, for example: http://www.onlinetools.org/articles/creating_thumbnails_all.php
However, auto-determining thumbnail sizes is problematic because a useful size often depends on context. A proper way to handle this may be to support the following variants of the [[Image]] tag:
[[Image:foo.jpg width=100 height=100]]
[[Image:foo.jpg width=100]] [[Image:foo.jpg height=100]] -> height or width autocalculated as per aspect ratio
[[Image:foo.jpg size=10%]]
The smaller versions would be generated as necessary and stored in a temporary directory. The matching original image information (date, size) would be stored in a table so that they can be updated on demand.
3) The image page content should be included by default below the image (preceded by a <BR>). That way when you type
[[Image:foo.jpg]]
You get
<img src="http://../foo.jpg"><BR> <I>This is an ugly photo!</I>
To suppress this and type a manual caption, you would have to do something like:
[[Image:foo.jpg notext]]
That way, you can have - the standard case: image with a simple caption; no need to update twice - the extended case: image with a short caption on the page where it is embedded and a longer discussion on its image page.
Discussion ---------- The approach discussed above has almost no obvious disadvantages. The following problems may ensue, though:
- Existing image pages will have to be re-edited to remove now redundant image content. Existing thumbnail images can be deleted.
- It is somewhat counter-intuitive to have the caption rendered implicitly on a page that includes an [[Image:foo.jpg]] tag. The alternative would be to do away with image pages as regular content-pages altogether. (Realistically, having a separate image namespace may have been a bad idea in the first place.)
However, having lots of redundant (and often neglected) content is clearly the least preferable choice.
There would, in my opinion, be massive advantages to having auto-generated small versions of images. This would greatly increase the usability on many pages, and make the traditional "click to view larger version" approach be usable almost anywhere.
Is the GD library installed on Wikipedia's server?
I would appreciate feedback on this proposal. I'd be willing to give the autogeneration a try, if no one else volunteers.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
I propose the following changes:
- As suggested earlier, an image page should always display the image
it refers to.
Makes sense.
- Smaller versions of images should be auto-generated in a separate
directory similar to the math/ directory used for texvc's images. The small versions would be viewed on the article where the [[Image]] tag is included, whereas the image would link to the original size version.
Two items with this one: 1. A thumbnail should be generated upon upload, so we don't have to wade through thaton every page display, 2. *if* and *only if* that is necessary. The images DW uploaded lately to replace mine don't really need a thumbnail ;-)
However, auto-determining thumbnail sizes is problematic because a useful size often depends on context. A proper way to handle this may be to support the following variants of the [[Image]] tag:
[[Image:foo.jpg width=100 height=100]]
[[Image:foo.jpg width=100]] [[Image:foo.jpg height=100]] -> height or width autocalculated as per aspect ratio
[[Image:foo.jpg size=10%]]
Why not say: *If* we need a thumbnail, it has a width of, say, 150 pixel (just to have a number). Width is the "problematic" factor, on smaller screens. So, for every image wider than this, a thumbnail is used, otherwise the original image.
- The image page content should be included by default below the image
(preceded by a <BR>). That way when you type
[[Image:foo.jpg]]
You get
<img src="http://../foo.jpg"><BR> <I>This is an ugly photo!</I>
To suppress this and type a manual caption, you would have to do something like:
[[Image:foo.jpg notext]]
That will break almost every layout! Try a 100-pixel-image, aligned in a table or a div, and put "<br>This is a very long description that will break every damned layout on wikipedia!" behind the image...
Discussion
The approach discussed above has almost no obvious disadvantages.
Well...
The following problems may ensue, though:
- Existing image pages will have to be re-edited to remove now redundant
image content. Existing thumbnail images can be deleted.
Image: pages with tumbnail/full image are rare. No problem there. Tumbnails can be found with the "orphaned images" function, provided we actually start using it ;-)
- It is somewhat counter-intuitive to have the caption rendered
implicitly on a page that includes an [[Image:foo.jpg]] tag. The alternative would be to do away with image pages as regular content-pages altogether. (Realistically, having a separate image namespace may have been a bad idea in the first place.)
How about the alt tag thingy I installed at the test site?
However, having lots of redundant (and often neglected) content is clearly the least preferable choice.
There would, in my opinion, be massive advantages to having auto-generated small versions of images. This would greatly increase the usability on many pages, and make the traditional "click to view larger version" approach be usable almost anywhere.
I agree. We'll have to think about what image to use on "printable version" - the thumbnail to keep layout, or the large one for resolution?
I'd be willing to give the autogeneration a try, if no one else volunteers.
For an alternative mechanism of handling images, see http://nupedia.com/article/long/Polymerase+Chain+Reaction/ (RIP), which I hacked some centuries ago ;-)
Magnus
On mar, 2003-01-07 at 10:37, Magnus Manske wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
- Smaller versions of images should be auto-generated in a separate
directory similar to the math/ directory used for texvc's images. The small versions would be viewed on the article where the [[Image]] tag is included, whereas the image would link to the original size version.
Two items with this one:
- A thumbnail should be generated upon upload, so we don't have to wade
through thaton every page display,
Note that this dovetails nicely with automatic rasterization of SVG images at both screen and printer-friendly resolutions. Comments, please: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVG_image_support
- The image page content should be included by default below the image
...
That will break almost every layout! Try a 100-pixel-image, aligned in a table or a div, and put "<br>This is a very long description that will break every damned layout on wikipedia!" behind the image...
Better yet, try http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian_alphabet ...
- It is somewhat counter-intuitive to have the caption rendered
implicitly on a page that includes an [[Image:foo.jpg]] tag. The alternative would be to do away with image pages as regular content-pages altogether. (Realistically, having a separate image namespace may have been a bad idea in the first place.)
I'm not clear on what this means. The suggestion appears to be to make captions more intuitive by eliminating the ability to edit image captions? I don't think I'm reading you right. :)
We'll have to think about what image to use on "printable version" - the thumbnail to keep layout, or the large one for resolution?
The large one, obviously. We can give pixel-width and height of the thumbnail so the browser lays it out at the same logical size.
I'd be willing to give the autogeneration a try, if no one else volunteers.
For an alternative mechanism of handling images, see http://nupedia.com/article/long/Polymerase+Chain+Reaction/ (RIP), which I hacked some centuries ago ;-)
I generally find tiny tiny tiny tiny thumbnails of diagrams to be simply _annoying_. They're like end-notes that contain vital information, forcing you to go off on a wild goose chase to see what should have been presented to you immediately.
Rather, I'd prefer that the small inline versions still be large enough to be useful and informative.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Die, 2003-01-07 at 19:37, Magnus Manske wrote:
- Smaller versions of images should be auto-generated in a separate
directory similar to the math/ directory used for texvc's images. The small versions would be viewed on the article where the [[Image]] tag is included, whereas the image would link to the original size version.
Two items with this one:
- A thumbnail should be generated upon upload, so we don't have to wade
through thaton every page display, 2. *if* and *only if* that is necessary. The images DW uploaded lately to replace mine don't really need a thumbnail ;-)
As others pointed out, trying to find the "correct" size for an image automatically is a bad idea. Sometimes you want a large version of the image in the article, sometimes you do not.
- The image page content should be included by default below the image
(preceded by a <BR>). That way when you type
[[Image:foo.jpg]]
You get
<img src="http://../foo.jpg"><BR> <I>This is an ugly photo!</I>
To suppress this and type a manual caption, you would have to do something like:
[[Image:foo.jpg notext]]
That will break almost every layout! Try a 100-pixel-image, aligned in a table or a div, and put "<br>This is a very long description that will break every damned layout on wikipedia!" behind the image...
With proper HTML this is not a problem. See [[Carl Sagan]] for an example of a relatively long caption in a table. But you are correct that suddenly showing the content of image pages on the article pages might break many simple layouts. It would therefore make more sense to reverse the syntax, that is,
[[Image:foo.jpg showtext]]
shows the text, whereas by default, it is hidden.
- It is somewhat counter-intuitive to have the caption rendered
implicitly on a page that includes an [[Image:foo.jpg]] tag. The alternative would be to do away with image pages as regular content-pages altogether. (Realistically, having a separate image namespace may have been a bad idea in the first place.)
How about the alt tag thingy I installed at the test site?
There's a very limited class of cases where the ALT tag makes sense, and that is with navigation buttons and the like. In these cases, blind/disabled users get relevant information, whereas others can, in some browsers, optionally get the ALT information by hovering, something many users are familiar with from the toolbar icons in applications like MS Word.
In almost all other cases, having the caption below the image makes much more sense: * Most people won't expect any meaningful text by hovering over photos * Not all browsers show the text when hovering (Mozilla 1.2.1 doesn't seem to, for example) * Some of the browsers that do show the text have trouble with long lines.
For an alternative mechanism of handling images, see http://nupedia.com/article/long/Polymerase+Chain+Reaction/ (RIP), which I hacked some centuries ago ;-)
No offense, but this IMHO clearly demonstrates the problems with the auto-thumbnail approach. The images are not recognizable in the article, and it is obvious that for some of them, making them larger would make sense, whereas for others, the small version is OK. Let's leave that choice to the editors, and just agree on some policies.
Regards,
Erik
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org