Erik Moeller wrote:
I propose the following changes:
--------------------------------
1) As suggested earlier, an image page should always display the image
it refers to.
Makes sense.
2) Smaller versions of images should be auto-generated
in a separate
directory similar to the math/ directory used for texvc's images. The
small versions would be viewed on the article where the [[Image]] tag is
included, whereas the image would link to the original size version.
Two items with this one:
1. A thumbnail should be generated upon upload, so we don't have to wade
through thaton every page display,
2. *if* and *only if* that is necessary. The images DW uploaded lately
to replace mine don't really need a thumbnail ;-)
However, auto-determining thumbnail sizes is
problematic because a
useful size often depends on context. A proper way to handle this may be
to support the following variants of the [[Image]] tag:
[[Image:foo.jpg width=100 height=100]]
[[Image:foo.jpg width=100]]
[[Image:foo.jpg height=100]]
-> height or width autocalculated as per aspect ratio
[[Image:foo.jpg size=10%]]
Why not say: *If* we need a thumbnail, it has a width of, say, 150 pixel
(just to have a number).
Width is the "problematic" factor, on smaller screens. So, for every
image wider than this, a thumbnail is used, otherwise the original image.
3) The image page content should be included by default
below the image
(preceded by a <BR>). That way when you type
[[Image:foo.jpg]]
You get
<img src="http://../foo.jpg"><BR>
<I>This is an ugly photo!</I>
To suppress this and type a manual caption, you would have to do
something like:
[[Image:foo.jpg notext]]
That will break almost every layout!
Try a 100-pixel-image, aligned in a table or a div, and put "<br>This is
a very long description that will break every damned layout on
wikipedia!" behind the image...
Discussion
----------
The approach discussed above has almost no obvious disadvantages.
Well...
The following problems may ensue, though:
- Existing image pages will have to be re-edited to remove now redundant
image content. Existing thumbnail images can be deleted.
Image: pages with tumbnail/full image are rare. No problem there.
Tumbnails can be found with the "orphaned images" function, provided we
actually start using it ;-)
- It is somewhat counter-intuitive to have the caption
rendered
implicitly on a page that includes an [[Image:foo.jpg]] tag. The
alternative would be to do away with image pages as regular
content-pages altogether. (Realistically, having a separate image
namespace may have been a bad idea in the first place.)
How about the alt tag thingy I installed at the test site?
However, having lots of redundant (and often neglected)
content is
clearly the least preferable choice.
There would, in my opinion, be massive advantages to having
auto-generated small versions of images. This would greatly increase the
usability on many pages, and make the traditional "click to view larger
version" approach be usable almost anywhere.
I agree. We'll have to think about what image to use on "printable
version" - the thumbnail to keep layout, or the large one for resolution?
I'd be willing to give the
autogeneration a try, if no one else volunteers.
For an alternative mechanism of handling images, see
http://nupedia.com/article/long/Polymerase+Chain+Reaction/ (RIP), which
I hacked some centuries ago ;-)
Magnus