New "Rate Recent" Interface

I just put up a somewhat changed "Rate Recent" interface. Please

report bugs, etc.

"Autosubmit" won't stay ON for me. It resets to the default (OFF) value after the first autosubmit rating.

 

It is a much cleaner looking interface, and I like that you can leave the comment box hidden, since you don't have to scroll down every page to see the photo.

Lighter, somehow faster (it may be just an illusion). Auto-submit doesn't stay ON as stated before.

I like it. Thanks for the effort.

Brian, it'd be interesting to know what is "autosubmit on/off" useful for... where is it explained?

 

New RR interface looks odd, only one little ">>" button available, without button title.

 

Is it for submit rating, for skipping to next image in the queue, or both simultaneus actions with a default value if rating form remains empty when click?

it's great! It's easy to use and quick. I like that I don't need to scroll. Thanks for taking the time to do this. So far I didn't notice any bugs - it worked perfectly. :)

 

Jennifer

May be a coincidence, but it's the first time I haven't been kicked off during a rating session. . . . . ever.

Well, the main reason for this new interface is not the tune-up of the interface but the code behind, which is completely new.

Thanks for the changes, Brian--very nice! And, like Carl, I didn't get "kicked off" in the middle of a rating session. I can't remember the last time that happened.

A very noteworthy change. I like that you do not have to scroll down, that the rating verbage has changed from low to high (a lot less offensive), that the colors are crisp and that the speed has been improved. I would rate it a 7 for aesthetics. Thanks for listening.

 

Now, what are the chances that you could just change that Originality rating to TECHNIQUE? That would be some change.

Great change indeed. Much cleaner looks and user friendly without the almost useless comments box. I noticed though, that when the first photo is displayed it overlaps the bottom letters (see the attachment). I'm using Firefox 1.5 and Win XP with 1024x768 resolution. Also, the box on the left showing "What others thought..." has very small letters which are hard to read. Other than that works fine and much better than before.<div></div>

I also get the overlaping text at the bottom when I try to use the feature to leave some comments, as I always did. I guess I will have to find another way to leave comments as the "Rate Recent" feature will not work for me anymore. Too bad there is not something similar for the people that want to only leave comments and no rates...<div></div>

Regarding the overlap, it looks like it is only happening the first time you look at a photo. The other times, it was not doing it.

 

I too would like to know what the autosubmit "on/off" means.

 

And I would like a lot to see a choice like the autosubmit to allow a user to decide to see or not the comment box. As I previously stated, I prefer to comment and I find it is deranging to have to click on the "comment" button on each and every photo the queue is serving me.

When the Auto Submit is On as soon as you rate the photo the software takes you to the next one.

 

With the Auto Submit Off, you have to click on the Forward (arrows) to get to the next photo.

 

Regards

Makes a lot of sense that I did not understood it since I'm not putting the ratings most of the time! Thanks for the explanation Guy.

...it seems to work fine for me, however I think that the new format discourages comments in

a way that the previous format encouraged them!

Only problem I see is where shots posted for critique in the last day

or so don't seem to have picked up any rates at all.

<p>

This just seems a little unusual to me and I wondered if it's related

to this change in some way.

<p>

Regards

I dont really remember if this was also the case of the older interface, but I am bothered by the images being resized to fit the new design (even if they are not larger than 680 pixels). The bad jpeg compresion makes some very good images look terible, and will probably reflect on the rates as well.

 

Brian, why cant you use the same standard size everywhere. I mean, lot of us optimize our images for a certain size and you are throwing away all this work with this bad resizing.

 

I like the style of the interface, BTW.

Apologies!

<p>

Yes, shots do still receive ratings. They just take rather a long

time.

Hello Brian, other than the >> button benifitting from some text it looks good.

 

I would like to se the link associated with the image going to a new browser window rather than opening in the same window. That would enable us to look at comments or other work in the submitters portfolio whilst still having the image available for rating.

 

Regards. Pete

Cant say I used or will use often, but I must say the design is quite good.

Yes I like the look.

 

If one is doing a lot of commenting the continual mouse movement to click on a button is

a real pain in the hand.

Could I second the request to have the comment button to use the same idea as

autosubmit ie to have comment box on or off. Also having to click on the very small >>

button is a pain also for doing large amounts of critiquing. Clicking on the image to

confirm the comment and move on would be fine.

 

If we want to move on to the next image without commenting could we not just click on

the image, that is a nice big 'button'.

 

There is no great need to have the click on the image to go to the 'ordinary image

comment screen' as we can already rate and comment.

 

Thanks

Why a "Comment button"? Suggestion: Always show the comment box <b>below</b> the image.

Alejandro, on the regular Photo page, the photos are not resized. The page displays the "medium" thumbnail by default and there is a "Larger" button to see the photographer's uploaded version. In many cases there is no medium thumbnail because the uploaded version was already smaller than the "medium" thumbnail would be. In that case, we just display the photographer's uploaded version, and there is no "Larger" button. The medium thumbnail is only created if the uploaded version is wider than 680 pixels. It can be any height. This means that sometimes people have to scroll the Photo page even with the medium thumbnail, especially portrait format images, since a portrait format image can be 680 pixels wide and a 1000 or more pixels high, and people often don't have browser windows that high.

 

Now, for the new Rate Recent display, unlike the Photo page, we are trying to display the photo at a size that eliminates the need for scrolling. We want people to be able to keep their mouse cursor near the rating buttons and the next button, and not have to mess with the scroll bars. Thus, the size that the photo will be displayed will be determined by the size of the viewer's browser window, less a little width for the previous photo thumbnail at left, and some height for the rating buttons. The first photo is displayed full size but there is javascript that picks up the browser window size and sends this to the server for the next photo. The "medium" thumbnail is used, unless there isn't one (in which case the uploaded version is used), and the browser is directed to resize it to fit in the window. If viewers have browser windows large enough there won't be any resizing by the browser.

 

If a photographer wants his photo never to be resized in any context on any page that is ever displayed to a user, then he needs to upload a version that (a) prevents a "medium" thumbnail from being created (i.e) 680 pixels or less in width; and (b) will fit in browser windows on all pages where we are trying to make the photos fit without scrolling, such as the new Rate Recent UI or the Slideshows.

 

The other option is to buy everyone a big monitor and get the various browser developers to stop people from making their browser windows small. To be honest, since you don't know how small people will size their browser windows, I would stop fretting about compression artifacts for your photos when displayed in small browser windows. Those people are going to be looking at the photos somewhat degraded from what they could be seeing if they had a larger monitor and/or ran their browser with a larger window. If you uploaded a version less than 680 pixels wide, and viewers have a browser window large enough to view it, and you upload a version in the sRGB color space, and both you and the viewer have calibrated monitors, then they will see what you intended without scrolling or browser resizing and the compression and resampling artifacts will be whatever they were in the version you uploaded. Otherwise, this won't be true, and there really isn't anything that you can do about it.

Strange that nobody spoke about (or I've missed it), but Brian, are 1 and 2 ratings back?<br>

As I said in another thread, it's unfair to rate just 'under average' photos with 3s while I'm obliged to rate hideous one with 3s too.