Thanks everyone who replied to the original survey! It turns out that I had made a mistake in the way I generated some images. The results of the survey were useful, but I was using an inferior technique to generate the thumbnails. It would be awesome if you can answer the newer, better version of the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F6CGPDJ
This time there are 12 images to rate for sharpness and quality. Each unique image appears 3 times, but it's generated using a different technique in each case.
I've switched away from side-by-side comparison because in practice people wouldn't experience those images side-by-side. And comparing 3-ways might require too much effort for a quick survey, given that the images are very similar to each other.
Thanks in advance for your time, Gilles
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Gilles Dubuc gilles@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
If you have a little spare time, it would be very helpful if you can answer this survey that takes less than a minute to complete: https://surveymonkey.com/s/FY89BTX
It will help determine if a specific flavor of a performance optimization proposal currently discussed [1] on the Multimedia mailing list [2] can be implemented without impacting image quality in a noticeable way.
Thanks, Gilles
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/multimedia/2014-April/000359.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia