ganeshbabu Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 The new photo display page, where the photo details and ratings are displayed really sucks... ( i do not have any other way to describe it).. Since it stays at the bottom of the screen, it is not intuitive. The new menu / tabbed way of selection different items like Options/ details / rate etc.. are not intuitive and they display at the bottom of the page. Most of the times, you can not see the picture and the details together becuase you have to scroll down... Also, the new rating system, in my opinion is against creating a community feeling.. I understands that it tried to protect / hide the individual names and their rating.. but in process,it destroys the concept of community in the photo.net... So,think about it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew_s._schwartz Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I kind of have to agree with Ganesh. I understand that you're trying to make the site "better," but it is a lot less intuitive and somewhat clumsier than it was last week -- and even yesterday. And it just so happens that yesterday I paid for a yearlong membership... and now the next day you change the look completely? Honestly, I love the community here and the room for my own personal growth, but with all the changing going on, I think a 30-day moneyback guarantee is in order... or at least 14 days... Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acearle Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I completely agree. One of the fundimentals of web design is to get information where people can see it and to minimize the number of clicks. Although the new design is "cool" it is quite a few steps backward in useability. In addition, I can't make heads or tails of the new ratings reports...are the numbers going from left to right now? I have 3 ratings, but only have two rows in the table. The new design will definitely discourage comments and ratings because of the additional steps required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acearle Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Oh yeah, and what happened to the ability to view small medium and large? It seems to default to medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomhallphotographycom Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 For a long time nothing happened to the usability of PN and now suddenly they implement changes nearly every day. I hoped that the ratings system would be chaged but this is overdone. No overview like before and you have to click like a madman (woman) to get anywhere. It is about clicking like they earn a fee per click. I think to get to the information you want you need at least 3 extra clicks and I just hate it. Very user unfriendly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikos Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Unfortunately I will have to concur... while the other changes relating to ratings, the display of folders, etc are ok, the change in the display fo photos is disastrous in my opinion. Before that, we used to have a neat page with all neccessary information on it and a flowing text with all comments. It was fine, it was usable, why change it? Why should I have to click little tabs here and there to see the most important aspect of the photo display, namely the comments? It sorts of hides the whole concept of discussion under a little option menu, while in fact it is the single most significant aspect of the gallery. I have come to love photo.net for its no-bullshit attitude on design and presentation. I know I'm not alone in this. Now it's gone out of the window overnight. There is one thing you really need to change regarding the photo display. Put a damn comment box and rating buttons underneath it, just like the photo-critique interface. Save us the trouble of clicking 6 times per photo to rate and comment. Only problem so far was that.. Are you still itching for change? Well, there's some stuff that doesn't hurt, but you could change, like putting the photo-info, ratings listin and details under a link, tab, whatever.. But please, please.. don't turn what use to be a photo showcasing and discussion format into a 'here's my photo smack in the middle, i've got a long discussion hidden away in the periphery' mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duolian Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Nikos wrote: "[W]e used to have a neat page with all neccessary information on it and a flowing text with all comments. It was fine, it was usable, why change it?" I agree completely. <p>The worst part of this change, as far as I am concerned, is no longer having the photo details displayed adjacent to the photo, readily accessible and viewable at the same time as the image. I have always taken a lot of interest in seeing film/media, lens, and other information about the images. Now that information cannot be seen at the same time as the image - you have to scroll back and forth. <p>This is not merely a pain; it also seems to back away from the very purpose of collecting and displaying that information in the first place, which was to allow photographers to learn more about photography by sharing information about technique. The new photo display page seems to reflect a move away from that learning model, in the direction of a pure display model: "<b>Hey! Look at my photo!</b> (<i>And, oh yeah, if you <u>really</u> insist on seeing it, you can get some info about it if you jump through these few hoops here...</i>)" <p>Why, why, why? What was the felt need that drove this change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markw Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 The photo details should be displayed on the same page as the photo. Sorry folks but this new display is NOT an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I happen to think it's great. Relax, it's all still there. The change is for the better IMO, many people do not like it because they dislike change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I agree also the new setup is not better <B>:+(</B><BR> With Explorer 6 I need to lower security even <BR> more then needed to sign on just to see photo info?<BR> <B>No photo view sizes either?</B><BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 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. Making a 300,000-times-per-day experience better at the (very slight) expense of a 30,000-times-per-day (at best) experience seems sensible to me. On top of all this, another reason for the change is that I want to start putting a skyscraper text links box next to the comments, and I don't want that to interfere with viewing the photo. That is what the veritical bar on the right is for in the critiques area. If you click open the critiques, you will see the text links, but the photo doesn't have to compete with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikos Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Richard, saying that the reason some of us don't like it is because we "dislike change" is kind of dismissive and unfounded, don't you think? I remember using this site as far back as 1997 (I think) and I have witnessed dozens of dramatic changes in the way it operates. This is probably the first time I'm outright speaking against something that has been changed, and I do so providing my reasons, too. If you disagree with me, please tell us why and respect others' opinions while doing so. Dismissing the value of our opinions by labeling them as emotional or arbitrary (which is what you're doing by disregarding the reasoning and attributing them to change-resistance by character) is not the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikos Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Brian, I agree that there was some clutter in the previous page organization. Maybe, having the dark-grey details box on the right was interfering a bit. A reasonable solution to that would be to have the photo large and centered on the page and make the details, comments, ads, comment box, rating scale, etc follow underneath in a two-column format. It would give the photo prominence, it would include the photographer's critique request and extra technical information promptly below, it would make it obvious to the user that there's more stuff to scroll down to. Compact, usable and hassle-free. Like it was before with some better layout/arrangement and a couple of interactive features (like rating and commenting) brought into the page as opposed to 6 clicks away. That is what I would call an improvement. What you did was take all the useful info, community contribution and interaction that set apart photo.net from a photo album site, and stuffed it under the carpet in the corner behind the unused couch. It's bad design, it does not represent the essence and objectives of the site, and instead of facilitating contribution and interaction, it blunts it. I know it's a strong point, and strongly said, but although I rarely say things with such absoluteness, this time I'll make an exception: it sucks big time! I can write a book about why this is a great site with an appendix the size of mexico city's phonebook listing improvements and changes that I liked. This one is one leap backwards, though. Now regarding your point about the 30,000 or whatever experiences per day.. let's not get overly obsessed with numbers. I know you have to count the beans to make end meet for the site. Understandable. But don't let this make you measure everything by the http hit. A few thousand photo views may be required to generate a few hundred comments/ratings. But that only goes to show the value of the latter. Those are what matters here, what filters the gallery, what makes it an interesting interactive experience for all of us. And I suspect the new format, that needs someone to proactively call upon the comments instead of just being drawn into the conversation, is very likely to reduce the amount of contributions generated per day. The new format just doesn't make you feel there's stuff you are meant to do about the photo you see. The old format radiated the notion of "this is not just a photo.. this is a page dedicated to the photo and it's discussion" I am sorry to lose that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Nikos, I did not say ALL, I said some, as in "many people". It's well-known and I guess natural for people to be uncomfortable with change. If that's not you, dismiss my comment. From some comments I see from others, mostly of the single-liner type without reasoning as to why they dislike it, it's often the case of just being uncomfortable with what they were otherwise use to. <p>FWIW, I'm using Win XP with IE and security set for Medium and all seems to work fine for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikos Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Richard, no offense taken.. I just wouldn't want to see this discussion dismissed as a mere hassle created by dinosaurs who can't take the change. It is not so. The photo display page is probably the single most important part of the site's interface. An overhaul of the design in terms of its mentality and the presentation it gives is no small change. I think it deserves a second thought, and I believe I have a point in what I say. I didn't want to come across as jumping on you for what you said - I just wouldn't like to see this issue undervalued as if it's "same old guys complaining about everything" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew_s._schwartz Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Brian, I was a professional web designer before law school. ALL professional sites post TEST pages and do all their tinkering offline before making it operational. To simply thrust these changes upon us piecemeal, without extensive testing, and without any sort of rhyme or reason, is totally uncalled for. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cs chua Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I just return from a two week trip China to see a new display in photonet. Maybe I am an odd ball from the rest but I like the new display. I agree the reason of just viewing the photos justify removing the clutter of the old schema. However I do have one item for consideration. The most often information I look for when I view photos here is the details, in particular the description of the location and the photographer's description if any. I agree with one feedback the need to scroll down on the details is a bit cumbersome. A typical monitor have more horizontal estate space than vertical. It may be worthwhile to experiment detail..ing to the right instead of down, otherwise display location and description info together with photo. All in all I like this simplistic and clean approach to photo display. Perhaps you could layout these to be display with the photo without an additonal click on the details. Equipment details can remain where it is now but consider location and description Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 What is a skyscraper links text box? the old system counted how many times the thumbnails were opened into full page views, which included a larger photo, the details, and the comments. Brian says he as figures which indicate how many times this happened, 300,000, or whatever it was, but it does not indicate, nor could it know, what percentage of those 300,000 requests were for photo only, or for details, or for comments because they all came with one click. We now can expect those same 300,000 clicks to occur, just as before, but can the system track the subsequent requests which are now required to view the ratings, the critiques and or the details? Seems like it should be able to do that and after a month or so we'll get a better picture how many of those 300,000 requests are for pictures only, and how many requests are made for the extra stuff. Matt, I can't say what goes on behind the scenes, or how much testing has been put to bear, how many users have been using it, but I do know that this interface has been around for quite a while, maybe as long as a year. I'm willing to get used to the extra clicking since the information I want displays fairly quickly. I just wish I could still eidt typos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 edit typos. Sorry. Not "eidt" typos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 did I also read somewhere that we do not have the "view large" capability any longer, either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnlund Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Brian - Does this signal a change in emphasis from critique to exhibition? You've written extensively about building those two separate parts into the gallery, but pure exhibition was discussed principally as a likely subscriber benefit, with critique as the default. The gallery graffiti analogy makes perfect sense for unratable exhibition photos, but it doesn't fit critiques as well. One doesn't typically retire from a gallery to a special critiquing room to discuss art, one engages other visitors/participants. Either way, allowing the photographer to optionally post an accompanying statement (akin to a gallery placard) would be a nice option. On a different note, I don't envy the kind of feedback you get whenever you introduce a change, but I suppose that even the rude posts are motivated by a passion for photo.net, so clearly your doing something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew_s._schwartz Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I wanted to apologize for being harsh in my earlier post. I really do enjoy photo.net, I love the simplicity, and I love the fact that the site administrator is so responsive. I just wish it seemed a little more polished/professional... I realize that costs money though. Maybe the site would take in more money if non-subscribers' access was limited after they reached a certain level -- not necessarily number of images posted, but activeness on the site. Once it has become obvious that someone is using the site extensively and logging on all the time, and yet is not paying for it, I believe it's time to veer away from the "honor system" approach. Or maybe people who are reluctant to spend $25 all at once wouldn't even blink at paying $4 on a monthly basis. That could also increase revenue, which may lead to more site improvements. Then again, this discussion is probably best kept in a different thread. :-) And I realize the presumptuousness of someone who's been here one week making suggestions about the layout / pricing scheme as though I am a founder. Maybe I'll just sit back and relax for a while..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I wouldn't say that there will be a de-emphasis from critique in favor of exhibition, but we do intend to make the Gallery better for exhibition. Exhibition has been shown to be something that people will pay for -- viz. many sites which have been successful in getting people to pay $25 to $60 per year for hosting their photo portfolios. photo.net provides this today for free, with subscriptions essentially on the honor system (for most people, that means "optional"). Nominally the portfolios are uploaded in connection with a Critique Forum, but about half the photographers uploading photos never request or write a critique, and many of those who do participate in "critique" actually seem to more interested in exhibition, visibility, praise, and sharing/social interaction. It isn't clear that large numbers of people will pay to participate in a Critique From. Not unless (1) the critiques are of a professional quality that we would have to pay people to write -- more than most people would pay for them; and/or (2) we guarantee that all the critiques are constructive/positive/encouraging. I don't want to make the Gallery subscriber-only or exhibition-only, and only accept photos from people who have paid. So the critique forum will continue to be free, with a few extra benefits for subscribers, the same as now. But there will be an Exhibition/Portfolio section and large portfolios uploaded for exhibition will require a subscription. A lot of the changes that we are working will be in line with this plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerald_widen Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I think the overall look is an improvement. The folder pages (with all of the thumbnails) looks much cleaner and I agree more similar to a look of a personal website.The size of the thumbs,which are larger than most other sites are large enough to get a good look before enlarging. I also like the clean look of the photo when enlarged. My one complaint might be that there doesn't appear to be a way to enlarge the photo further. I appreciate the effort the site is making to make improvements in many areas especially with regard to ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 For once I wish I were Brian Mottershead so I could respond to Matt's post. 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