john falkenstine Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 You can see the image, or you can see the technical data, but not both at the same time now, forcing constant mouse movement to look at one or the other...Other menu items are now also off-monitor. Links to forums postings have also disappeared again. I think the tech data and links need to be on the same visible page as the image. While the effort to make some changes is positive, especially the rating system, the need to constantly scroll the monitor is not exactly an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 What resolution monitor do you have? The details and the photo were only visible side-by-side before when the photo was relatively small. Previously, in most cases you had to scroll down in order to see the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted July 9, 2004 Author Share Posted July 9, 2004 I have a 17" flatscreen monitor on high res, see attached picture. A lot of the data is now "in the monitor basement" somewhere behind the Samsung sign or below the top of my desk...:)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I dare say for the photo in your illustration, most of the details and commentary would also have been "down there" somewhere with the old photo display page. If you want to check, the old display can be accessed as /photodb/photo0?photo_id=99999 . That is photo0, with a zero at the end. It was relatively rare before for a photo to be narrow enough for the details to be displayed to the right. With the new format, there is a little more top and bottom margin on the photo, using up a bit more vertical real-estate, but not a huge amount more, and some of this has been made up by having the title be smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelseewald Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Funny, I just read John's critique of my latest posted image and thought maybe I should go and make a comment about it here. And here he has already done it, to some extent. The problem is that he could not make my image any bigger, like we used to be able to. With medium format all that extra detail is what makes it so juicy. As I told him, I like the new look (I've only found this site a month ago, so I don't know about all of the looks, but it's a nicer one. But, it would be nice to have that 'larger' button back somewhere on the bottom, next to critique. Brian, keep up the good work. The site's terrific and all of your hard work shows off well. Blessings, MS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted July 9, 2004 Author Share Posted July 9, 2004 I read that the "large" button is making a comeback. Ausgezeichnet!!Goed!!!Bien!!! also, the revision to the rating system appears to be gradually taking effect, to the point that those parties still engaging in mate rating now are starting to stand out badly. While I have some reservations about the changes (Are we getting tracking to out Forum postings back?) I would say the effort to make some changes is to be congratulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 What do you mean by getting Forum posting tracking back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etienned Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Hey Brian I saw that is always possible to access to the "old" style! Why did you don't put the choice between old version and new version in an option for each user? So each member can chose between old or new style and everybody is happy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 The old style won't be around for long. For one thing, I don't want to have to maintain two different formats of the page. This photo page is complex, and I don't want to have to keep two versions up to date as features are introduced, or the database structure changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattvardy Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Brian Mottershead, jul 09, 2004; 10:43 a.m. "The change was made on the theory that the most important thing in the display of the photo is ... the photo. The previous display surrounded the photo with a lot of bureaucracy, which seriously detracted from the appreciation and "valorization" of the photo, in my opinion. In a physical Gallery, you don't write your comments on the walls next to the photo, do you? That sure would be a convenient "user-interface" for people interested in writing comments, but physical Galleries normally have a Guest Book hidden away somewhere, and it is a loss less handy than "Critiques" one click a away, as in the new interface. And the exposure information, camera, etc, aren't on a big sign next to every photo either. People interested in those things should be easily able to find them, but those aren't the things that should be prominent. How many of you who have your own portfolio sites, and who are complaining about this change, would design your portfolio sites to look like the old photo display, with the "Guest Book", technical details, and lots of gizmo's and do-hickeys surrounding each photo? The fact is that most of the people opening the thumbnails do so to look at the photos, not to look at technical details or to read the critiques or to write a critique or rate the photo. photos are opened for viewing about 300,000 times per day on photo.net. There are only a few thousand comments written per day, and maybe 6-7 thousand ratings (most of which come through the photocritique "slide-show" interface anyway). Even if you assume that for every commenter there are a few people who are interested in reading the comments, the "lookers" still far outnumber the people interested in details, ratings, and critiques." --Brian Mottershead. Brian, I strongly disagree with nearly every statement in the above post, along with countless others you've made across the Feedback Forum. To answer one of your questions, no, I wouldn?t post that info in a physical gallery; but PN IS NOT A PHYSICAL GALLERY ? its an internet site, and as such I think we need to use as many tools, texts, and details as we can to communicate efficiently in cyberspace. It *feels* to me like you are customising and dictating PN based on your own preferences and opinions alone, rather than including the opinions and preferences of the THOUSANDS of members in your decision making. You *sound* ruthless, careless and ignorant IMO regarding your decisions on the new formats and displays. *Personally*, I hate the new photo display (along with many others): the grey sucks and interferes with countless uploaded images bordered by photographers based on a PN white background, the "hiding" of details was a bad move - you have removed the photographer's ability to spontaneously inform viewers of image-intentions and in what context an image should be viewed, the new uniformly small sized thumbnails have lost all detail and in some cases have even distorted previously flawless uploads, the ability to edit a copyright statement in "Edit Image" has been lost (big problem for me because I used copyright symbols which have now turned into question marks for Crissakes), etc. etc. I think these unanimous problems need to be addressed and fixed. I for one am contemplating unsubscribing because IMO PN is no longer user-friendly and workable. It *feels* like you [brian] have taken away my privileges, it *feels* like you are dictating and changing based on YOUR own preferences; how MY images should appear in MY (paid-for) portfolio. If I was a non-subscriber, you could argue that I have no rights as a PN user, but as a subscriber - like so many others, I think I deserve a say in how my images are displayed. Judging from all the recent posts in the feedback forum, I think its safe to say that many of us are upset and are not used to such random, quick changes without warning and discussion. If we could have the option of different backgrounds for images (change grey to white for example) that would make a significant improvement. Or, though you feel it would be too much work, if we could have the option of the OLD or NEW display - that would be perfect and should solve many problems. Some of us liked the old style, some like the new, and this would be an excellent feature of PN - a user-changeable interface [interface: think that's what it?s called]. It's like when you create a calendar using a wizard; the wizard provides different display options for the user to choose for his/her calendar - PN should have a similar feature/option regarding page displays. Also, each photographer should have the option of making Details a link, or readily viewable under each image. Details give the photographer a chance to explain his/her image to the viewer, letting the viewer know how he/she intended the photo to be interpreted, and in what context for example: one of my Custom Data Fields is titled "My Thoughts on Image" where I talk to the viewer about my image and what I think of it, and what my thought-processes were at the time of its making. This "tool" of mine (and I suspect others) has been lost. Brian, I appreciate the time and effort you put into this site, but I?m afraid these recent changes are too drastic and have caused a lot of unrest in the community. Things still need editing, and I hope that the current displays are still being edited and revised to include more personal preferences and settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted July 9, 2004 Author Share Posted July 9, 2004 Brian, in answer to your question; when I click on my name, a data page comes up showing my last posted images, rating statistics and so on. The page also show the link(s) to critiques on posted images and such. The link to postings on Forums "comes and goes" i.e. at times its there, at times its not. I'm sure the problem will straighten out. No problem. If you wish you can dump this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Matt: (1) People expressing themselves in this forum don't represent a "unanimous" opinion. photo.net has over a milion visitors per month, about 60,000 people who've uploaded photos, and about 3000 subscribers -- most of whom never express an opinion in the Site Feedback forum about the design of the site. The opinion of posters in the SF forum is the opinion of a fairly narrow slice of those users, and it is basically impossible to tell how representative they are. When you say, in this case, that this opinion is unanimous, you are even wrong about that, since I've expressed my opinion in the forum and I don't agree. Perhaps my opinion doesn't count. And I'm not the only person who has stated a preference for the changes. You should have said that most of the people expressing an opinion so far are negative about the change. That seems to be true. This would prey on mind more if it were not always the case that the response to any change is mostly negative. If people expressing an opinion in the forums were mostly positive about changes, but negative about this particular one, I'd be more worried. (2) It seems you don't like the gray background. You're more of a white-background kind of guy. I'm more a shades-of-gray kind of guy. Check around a few portfolio sites; you'll find I'm far from alone. You might have noticed that the background in "Top Photos" and in the "Folder" pages have been gray for a long time, so this is not exactly a sudden move by photo.net into the gray camp. It can be considered as "consistent". You think gray might interfere with the framing effects of people who assumed the background would always be white. I don't notice that you have any framing effects like that in your portfolio; so you must be talking about other people. I didn't think of all the shadow effects, etc, that people have been doing on their photo frames, and I don't know how pervasive a problem that is yet. I think it isn't very pervasive. But there has to be some background color and some design for the photo page. You didn't have control of the photo page styling before, and you still don't. Did you think it was going to be as it was forever? Actually, I think it would be nice to give people more control over the stylesheet used in their folders, photo pages etc. It does not seem to have occurred to people that since the design is now stylesheet-based (it was not before), that I might be trying to get to a point where people will be able to provide their own stylesheets for their portfolios. But we have to start with some stylesheet, and we've started with the one I've come up with. (3) You want the details to be displayed with the photo. I think they should be readily available but hidden unless you are interested in them. They don't require a round-trip to the server to fetch them; you can click them open immediately. Apparently, you've been using Technical Details to give critique instructions to people, and now those instructions are stranded. That is what the Critique Request is for, which is still displayed at the beginning of all the critiques. If you had been putting the information relevant to the request for critique in, uh, the Critique Request, this change might have been more acceptable to you, I guess. (4) Since the photo page format change only happened last night, I can't tell about that yet. But judging from traffic, most people are indifferent to the ratings and folder design change. Certainly there is no massive exodus as a result of the changes. On the contrary, Wednesday was one of the highest traffic days that we have recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 <i><blockquote> details.... I think they should be readily available but hidden unless you are interested in them. </blockquote> </i><p> That's the way I've usually experienced it, since I usually rate folders and not individual images. But when I do click onto a single image it's because I either want to view it larger or, more likely, to see the details. So it is a little frustrating for me to have to do the extra clicking and then scrolling down to get at that info. Not a big thing, but still.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 John, there are two flavors of that page. There is the "Gallery Member" page, and the "Community Member" page. The "Gallery Member" page has the URL http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=xxxxx. The other one has the URL, http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=xxxxx. These two pages existed before, generated by different code, each with a different style, and with overlapping content. Basically if you click on a name anywhere in the Gallery, you get the "Gallery Member" page. Anywhere else on the site, clicking on a name brings you to the "Community Member" page for the person. The Gallery Member page shows gallery-related information; it never displayed the forum postings or any other non-Gallery information. All I did was to make it so that the same code generates both the pages, with the Gallery Member page being a subset of the Community Member page, and to make the HTML stylesheet based, with a style similar to the one we have been using for articles in the "static" sections of the site. This makes it easier for me to maintain the code, and it means that the two pages have the same style, which furthermore is somewhat consistent with the evolving style of the rest of the site. There is actually more information in the Gallery Member page now than before, such as the distributions of ratings given and received. No information has been removed from the Gallery Member page. Perhaps the fact that the Gallery Member pages now looks a lot more like the Community Member page makes you think that information has been removed from it. That isn't so. Perhaps I should just ditch the Gallery Member page and use the Community Member page everywhere. It is hard to think of a good reason why a "Gallery Member" and a "Community Member" need to be distinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 <i><blockquote> Perhaps the fact that the Gallery Member pages now looks a lot more like the Community Member page makes you think that information has been removed from it. That isn't so. Perhaps I should just ditch the Gallery Member page and use the Community Member page everywhere. </blockquote> </i><p> The Community Page does not provide access to a member's 'Top Rated' photos by others. Only the Gallery Member page has that. It becomes more difficult with the new setup to access those lists. Folding in all information into a single Community Member page would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Bailey, are you sure? In my Community Member page, there is the same info on Photo Ratings as in the Gallery Page, including the "23 most frequently rated photos of this member". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 You're right. Yes, that information is there. But it seemed not to have been there on <i>someone's</i> page earlier this evening (Sorry, can't remember who). Maybe I just missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 What is missing is the actual text of the most recent 4 or 5 comments within the gallery, which was on one page, and the 7 or 8 most recent on the other page. Now, it just list links to the pages, no clue as to what was posted. Also missing: Posts made to images now deleted, which means the system purges itself automatically of dead end comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbs Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 "What resolution monitor do you have?" Dell 19" flat at 1280X960 rez (50% rez) for me most images were side by side with the data. Not everyone still runs at 800x....;)....J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agriffin Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 The data shown under the image falls off the bottom of my 1600x1200 ThinkPad IPS panel. Ridiculous. Is it perhaps designed on one of those 3840x2400 IBM T221 monitors? Whoever made the 'image is the only important thing' argument is ignoring what I see as the most important thing this site does - foster learning. When a photographer provides some technical data or exposure details pertaining to his photo, he or she has shared a little insight into how that image was made - ultimately informing the viewer, perhaps even enabling them to achieve a similar effect in their future photographic expeditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wenger Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Brian - It sounds like you have more exciting changes coming (the ability for users to assign preferences through CSS, etc.). I'm glad the server problems seem to be in the past and see you have the time to focus on innovation. If you don't change - you lose. I do like the idea of either the photographer or the user being able to specify preferences for displaying critiques, details, etc. by default. Also I think it would be useful for the "All photos by photographer" page: http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=XXXXXX to have the same "Options|Details" selection as is available in the folder views: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=XXXXXX I see no reason to have the 2 different community member pages. I agree with Doug that having the text of the comments included as opposed to just a link to the thread as it was before would also be nice. Could that be collapsed and expanded by the user? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 ok then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now