[Foundation-l] Clickable images

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 9/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at 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...