Arrows on Either Side of Each Image

[havanai]

My suggestion is that you revise the standard view of individual photos. The big white arrows in blue rounded

rectangles that flank each photograph now when you view them one at a time are thoroughly distracting. An image

looks best when presented on a plain background. With these two arrows protruding from the sides of the image,

you are really crowding it and detracting from the viewers' ability to enjoy the picture. There's enough

framing, titling, advertising, and additional images around each image. The photographs shouldn't have to fight

for attention among all that clutter. It's not a bad feature to be able to scroll through the work of a

photographer you might enjoy. But move the arrows down to the bottom of the screen, lighten and de-saturate

their color, and make them smaller. As they are now, they just make it harder for the photographs to have their

full impact on us, the viewers who want to appreciate and learn from them.

Kurt Kramer

Long-time Subscriber

[joshroot]

While some number of people may not like the current icons, gallery image views are up 15-20% since they were added. That's 15-20% more sets of eyes on your images. So we aren't really interested in getting rid of the buttons completely or making them too much harder to use. Given how important views and critiques are to most users on the site, I would say a lot of people would agree with me that a few compromises are worth it if it means more people looking (and perhaps commenting) on their images.

 

But we are looking at ways that we can retain that high usage of the buttons, but make them less distracting to the people who dislike them. I'm sure the answer will be a compromise for everyone, as things like this frequently are.

[cromwell1664877587]

Well put, Kurt. It's more than just a little obvious to anyone with an artistic eye what basically has to be done with the arrows....put them at the bottom of the picture just outside the title box. I would say, keep the arrows the same size and turn them from white to a little lighter than the color that surrounds them now, so you can do away with the visible area that surrounds them. I know you guys know this and have basically stated so....kind of. I just hope the predetermined amount of time you have set so that most of the occasional users of this site are familiar with the arrows is drawing to a near, because I honestly haven't been able to thoroughly enjoy a photo on this site for 2-3 weeks now. Right now, people are going to be clicking on the arrows and driving up the image views. They're a brand new feature, not to mention a huge distraction that takes just as much or more attention than the actual picture. That doesn't mean they're looking at more of our pictures(at least not 15-20% more)....just playing with the new buttons. Of course, maybe it takes 15-20% more image viewing to get our fix when the quality is diluted with bold arrows.

[joshroot]

Wow Scott, what an insulting post. You sure make it sound like none of us working on photo.net have a damn clue what we are doing here. Tell me something, is the view good up there on your high horse?

 

I said we will modify the arrows at some point and we will. If they are just simply "ruining" the experience for you, I guess you'll have to leave.

 

Or, you know, wait until we have a chance to do it.

[tonmestrom]

While they are indeed a bit "biggish" it's not that big a deal either. I mean, every time I pick up a magazine to look at photo's there is clutter all around and while watching on screen there is a toolbar and all right in your line of sight. So OK that it will be worked on but when overall exposure of images is indeed up by such a percentage than that I find exceedingly more important.

[Michael R Freeman]

>"It's more than just a little obvious to anyone with an artistic eye what basically has to be done with the arrows....put them at the bottom of the picture just outside the title box."

 

I'll say it's more than just a little obvious to anyone with a PRACTICAL eye that the LAST place to put them is at the bottom of the picture. In that location a lot of viewers will need to scroll to see (and use) them, which entirely defeats the purpose of having them in the first place - easy browsing within a folder.

 

They're fine where they are. They could be a little smaller, but they are a very nice improvement to what was there before - nothing.

[cromwell1664877587]

My apologies, Josh, but I meant no offense toward any of you guys. I said I know you know what needs to be done and am in hopes it will be done soon, because I just can't get passed them. So yes, I do think you guys have a clue. They probably shouldn't bother me so much, but they honest to God do. I just tried to read my post from your point of view and I guess it could have been worded differently, but I think there's some misunderstanding going on.

[gordonjb]

I took Scott's comment as matter of fact, rather than insulting. Goodness knows the management at PN have no

issue with being matter of fact with their responses.

 

I think Scott is correct about some amount of that number being due to the novelty of those arrows in conjunction

with the fact they are so absurdly huge people probably click on them accidentally. I find them ugly and

distracting. I would rather have someone take the time to look at my image and maybe even leave a comment rather

than being concerned with how many images they can click through in a few moments. The number of page views is

obviously relevant to the owners of PN and not just us members which is why we now have huge side arrows and no

larger button.

[joshroot]

<i>"The number of page views is obviously relevant to the owners of PN and not just us members which is why we now have huge side arrows and no larger button."</i>

<p>

A: Allow me to forward you the massive amount of email I get any time the views counter is working incorrectly or broken and then you tell me who views are more important to.

<p>

B: Yes, the tiny, hard-to-see, "larger" button is gone. Now you just click on the image to get a larger version.

[joshroot]

Scott,

 

I'm sure your post wasn't made in the spirit that I made it out to be. In reality, I shouldn't let myself work late at night on a Friday after a long week. I'm obviously not at my best.

[havanai]

I am amazed that they seem to have added to the number of views. That's nice, but they are still too big, too colorful, and maybe the biggest issue, TOO CLOSE* to the sides of the images. How about putting them outside of the white area that surrounds the photo and the comments?

 

 

*I am not shouting, I wish I could underline or italicize.

 

Thanks, Kurt

[joshroot]

You can easily <u>underline</u> or <i>italicize</i> by using a little simple HTML.

[Michael R Freeman]

Underline: <u>text</u>

 

Italicize: <i>text</i>

 

So simple even *I* can do it. :-)

 

Select "HTML" in the box below the compose window, and do not forget to close your tags, i.e. remember the backslash - </html tag>.

[gordonjb]

" Yes, the tiny, hard-to-see, "larger" button is gone."

 

 

That explains some of the mystery for me. The issue appears to be a matter of perspective. The larger button used to seems to be a normal size to my eyes and the arrows on the side of the images currently seem gigantic. I am waiting for an industrial forklift to back up to my image and used those arrows as handles to pick up my photo and load it on a freight train.

[joshroot]

I'm going to move this thread to the Leica forum. Any subject generating this much hyperbole deserves a place at the table next to those threads.

[gordonjb]

Wow I get to have my post on the Leica forum while continuing to shot with my shabby Canon SLR, a dream comer true :-)

[tonmestrom]

Is this what you had in mind?<div></div>

[James G. Dainis]

Why not make the arrow the same color as the background? That way it wouldn't show up at all. Of course, you

would need some text saying, "There is an arrow here. Click on it to move to the next photo." (And an arrow pointing

to it).

[tonmestrom]

I'm gonna up that by one. A voice triggered sitenav system.

[gordonjb]

Ton;

 

Where are the gigantic left and right arrows in your shot ?

 

You've gotta have arrows if you're gonna pick up that pic and get it on the train.

[tonmestrom]

I followed James advice and blended them in the background. Rumour has it that by now all arrows are pointing at Josh and that he'll be inundated by arrows instead of e-mails.

[havanai]

Just back from a week in Montana. I see the arrows have been turned to medium gray, lessening their impact. Could still be better, i.e. less intrusive, but this was a step in the right direction. Thanks.