gallery tweaks - what would you like to see?

[brynn]

Hi Friends,
I've made a couple of changes to the gallery, which I think make for a more organized view.

1 - The file name no longer shows under the thumbnail.  Now it  just shows the image title, file description, and number of views.  I think that helps some with the current cluttered look of the thumbnail pages.  You can still find the file name, on what's called the intermediate page, which is the page with all the file info on it (the page that comes up when you click on a thumbnail).

And regarding that intermediate page:

2 - Now when you click on a thumbnail, it shows only the intermediate image, with comments below (if any have been posted).  All the file info can still be displayed, by clicking on the button whose tool tip says "Display/hide file information".  It's the 2nd from the left in the bar across the top of the intermediate image (which says "FILE n / x" ).  (The button icon looks like a piece of paper -- a white square with 3 black lines on it.)

Lazur had made some comments (http://forum.inkscapecommunity.com/index.php?topic=81.0) about how that page is disorganized, and I agree.  So I think it looks better without the file info showing.

What do you all think about those 2 changes?

I am studying some other options for the front page of the gallery.  You can see with a collection of my images uploaded, it just really looks cluttered and disorganized.  The reason for that is the Random Files block.  And it's only going to get worse, the more people upload their images.  It turns out that the Random block does not have to be shown there at all.  So I thought it might be helpful to hear what members would like to see on the front page.  I'm not entirely clear yet, exactly what can be done.  But it sounds like it's quite versatile.  Here are some of the other available options, and ideas I've had:

 -- There's a block of most viewed images, that I could configure.
 -- Also, there's a block of the last uploaded (newest images).
 -- Either or both above, with or without the Random block.
 -- The number of thumbnails showing can be changed as well.  Maybe it would look better to show just 1 row of thumbs?
 -- I think I would be able to make the front page show the same thumbnails to everyone -- no random collection.
 -- It could be the same images always.  Or maybe they could be rotated out every few months, so that everyone's images can spend some time on the front page.  Sort of like a featured artist block, or something like that.
 -- Or maybe it would be better to have just 1 or 2 or 3 images (rather than the current 20).
 -- Or I guess we could have no thumbnails at all....well, except for the album thumbs.  Just picture the front page without the Random block, and that's what the page would look like without any thumbnails.  The album thumbnails would still show....although.... well, I could even use just the Inkscape logo for the album thumbs.  Without any other block of thumbs, a visitor would have to enter the gallery, to see any images.  So I'm not sure if that would make sense.

Do you all have any thoughts or ideas about improving the front page of the gallery?

[Lazur]

The index page looks much better now!

Some of my recent thoughts:

The albums still have a too random look in my opinion.
You can see too much at a time from the tumbnails on one screen.
And the viewcount and the comment count seems unnecessary there. Would it be a good thing to look at an image just because it has many views?

If you have many images it gets totally out of control.
You want to show someone your work, but even you, the uploader now have to get to the right page one by one, to get to the right image.

I would suggest to have the main folder for the gallery to have bigger thumbnails for the subfolders and for each subfolder you could add a description.
Like "Picasso's gallery" (main) and then a "blue period" subfolder.
Then, in the subfolder, it would be much organised, if you could see all thumbnails of the images -in a bit bigger size than now-,
on one page, in only one column.

On the image's page, the comment input bar is too small.
It limits the comments to one row, and makes it nearly impossible to add a longer comment, or, to start a conversation.
The emoticon bar also adds a too childish look.
If you want to add one in the comment, then you would better get to those from an add comment panel,
resulting a more mature look.
"Here is the image I made to capture the agony of death. If you would like to comment it, jump next to the smileys to do so". 

[brynn]

Oh wow!  When I got rid of the Random block on the front page, it got rid of it everywhere -- awesome!  And now that I know that, I may be able to address more of your concerns.

Thanks for your comments.  Let me make sure I understand.

The albums still have a too random look in my opinion.
You can see too much at a time from the tumbnails on one screen.

Do you mean there are too many thumbnails per row?  That value can be changed....but it changes for everyone.  There are no individual user choices for that.  When the gallery was 1st installed, the default was 2 thumbs per row.  But that would require an excessive amount of scrolling (imo) for a visitor to look through an album.  I actually prefer 5 thumbs per row.  But if most people want less, we can do that.

And the viewcount and the comment count seems unnecessary there. Would it be a good thing to look at an image just because it has many views?

In the album, you don't think view count and comment count are necessary, correct? 

Now that I've gotten rid of that annoying random display, which changes constantly, the only place where the view count and comment count appear, is in the album.  I might be able to get rid of those items.  But if I disable comment count, how would anyone know whether there are any comments to look at?

I kept the view count, because I disabled ratings.  So that the view count could be an indication of the popularity of an image.  But I don't think the view count is absolutely necessary.  Actually, it is possible that someone could click on their own image and give it an artificially high count.  So I wouldn't mind getting rid of the view count.

Actually, I've been planning to wipe out all the views for my album, because I've been opening my images so often for troubleshooting and testing, and what-not.  It's become an unrealistic reflection of how many people have viewed them.  So you probably wouldn't have to twist my arm very much, to get rid of the view count 

And, there's 1 more thing to consider.  The user has the ability to choose whether they want visitors to be able to post comments.  So of course that would remove not only the comment count, but all comments, altogether.

I would suggest to have the main folder for the gallery to have bigger thumbnails for the subfolders and for each subfolder you could add a description.
Like "Picasso's gallery" (main) and then a "blue period" subfolder.

Ok, I'm not quite following what you mean here.  I think we already have "Picasso's gallery" which are the User Galleries.  Each user's gallery is named by the username (and you can't change that).  Then in each user's gallery, the user can have as many albums as they want (blue period, red period, halloween, etc.) and named whatever the user chooses, and can also be changed later, if they change their mind.  And the albums can have descriptions too, already.  It just happens that no one has written a description for their album, so far.

Are you saying that you think the album thumbnails need to be bigger?  Let's use mine for an example.  My gallery is called brynn, and I can't change that.  Inside my gallery, I have 1 album called Brynn (which I could change if I want).  For my album called Brynn, I uploaded my forum avatar to use for that album's thumbnail.  It's a tiny image, and really its only purpose is to identify my album.  I have a larger version of that image, which I have not uploaded yet.

In Album Properties, there are options for which image you want to represent your album.  You could choose to have the last image you uploaded represent your album.  Of course, that means it would change, whenever you upload a new image.  Or you could have your album represented by a random image, which means that everytime you or anyone looks at the gallery, your album will show a different thumbnail.

I actually don't understand the purpose of having an image which is supposed to represent the album, that changes from one time to the next.  But there are still a few parts of this software that I don't understand.

Anyway, which thumbnails do you think need to be bigger?  I can change the size of the thumbnails.  But only the thumbnails in the albums.  I don't think I can change the size of the album thumbnail which represents the album.  However, I think there is an option not to show an album thumbnail at all.  Then the album is only represented by it's name (text).  I have considered doing that already.  So if i seems like most people would prefer that, I won't mind making that change.

Then, in the subfolder, it would be much organised, if you could see all thumbnails of the images -in a bit bigger size than now-,
on one page, in only one column.

Do you mean that you want thumbnails in 1 column, on 1 page?  I'm not sure if that would be realistic - what if someone  has 50 images or more uploaded?  The amount of scrolling it would take, to look through that person's album would become too tedious, imo.  But please do clarfy, so I can understnada what you're thinking 

[Lazur]

...
Do you mean there are too many thumbnails per row?  That value can be changed....but it changes for everyone.  There are no individual user choices for that.  When the gallery was 1st installed, the default was 2 thumbs per row.  But that would require an excessive amount of scrolling (imo) for a visitor to look through an album.  I actually prefer 5 thumbs per row.  But if most people want less, we can do that.
...

Yes, I meant it makes a too busy look.
One row could work too, but the page works more in an up and down direction, so a one column would look better in my opinion.
Once images are well organised I don't think that would be a problem.
With an old fashioned camera you could take only 36 pictures on a film.
More variations on one theme would be boring in itself, and not on the scrolling.

That way the folder could have more of an exhibition feel.

...
In the album, you don't think view count and comment count are necessary, correct? 

Now that I've gotten rid of that annoying random display, which changes constantly, the only place where the view count and comment count appear, is in the album.  I might be able to get rid of those items.  But if I disable comment count, how would anyone know whether there are any comments to look at?

I kept the view count, because I disabled ratings.  So that the view count could be an indication of the popularity of an image.  But I don't think the view count is absolutely necessary.  Actually, it is possible that someone could click on their own image and give it an artificially high count.  So I wouldn't mind getting rid of the view count.

Actually, I've been planning to wipe out all the views for my album, because I've been opening my images so often for troubleshooting and testing, and what-not.  It's become an unrealistic reflection of how many people have viewed them.  So you probably wouldn't have to twist my arm very much, to get rid of the view count 

And, there's 1 more thing to consider.  The user has the ability to choose whether they want visitors to be able to post comments.  So of course that would remove not only the comment count, but all comments, altogether.
...

Good point with the comment counter.
The view counter at the image's data's where it's at too is good but that would be meaningless with a comment counter.
Maybe a setting where the profiles could get a notification that someone commented on their images?
Like on facebook. Or similar. Too many notifications can be annoying too.

...
Ok, I'm not quite following what you mean here.  I think we already have "Picasso's gallery" which are the User Galleries.  Each user's gallery is named by the username (and you can't change that).  Then in each user's gallery, the user can have as many albums as they want (blue period, red period, halloween, etc.) and named whatever the user chooses, and can also be changed later, if they change their mind.  And the albums can have descriptions too, already.  It just happens that no one has written a description for their album, so far.

Are you saying that you think the album thumbnails need to be bigger?  Let's use mine for an example.  My gallery is called brynn, and I can't change that.  Inside my gallery, I have 1 album called Brynn (which I could change if I want).  For my album called Brynn, I uploaded my forum avatar to use for that album's thumbnail.  It's a tiny image, and really its only purpose is to identify my album.  I have a larger version of that image, which I have not uploaded yet.

In Album Properties, there are options for which image you want to represent your album.  You could choose to have the last image you uploaded represent your album.  Of course, that means it would change, whenever you upload a new image.  Or you could have your album represented by a random image, which means that everytime you or anyone looks at the gallery, your album will show a different thumbnail.

I actually don't understand the purpose of having an image which is supposed to represent the album, that changes from one time to the next.  But there are still a few parts of this software that I don't understand.

Anyway, which thumbnails do you think need to be bigger?  I can change the size of the thumbnails.  But only the thumbnails in the albums.  I don't think I can change the size of the album thumbnail which represents the album.  However, I think there is an option not to show an album thumbnail at all.  Then the album is only represented by it's name (text).  I have considered doing that already.  So if i seems like most people would prefer that, I won't mind making that change.
...

I was thinking about the album thumbnails would represent more what's inside them more in larger sizes.
Like spaventapasseri's album.
Well "my inkscape works" is not a too clear name choice, but with a bigger image it could give an idea of what's inside.
Like an entrance door of a house, representing the owner.

Also now there are unnecessary data shown next to it where the invitation should be.
Like numbers for the water services.

Setting the album thumbnail change automatically to the newest uploaded would function just as saying to old visitors that there are new images uploaded since.
Which is more relevant to them than the information of when was the latest image uploaded?
In a short term at least.

...
Do you mean that you want thumbnails in 1 column, on 1 page?  I'm not sure if that would be realistic - what if someone  has 50 images or more uploaded?  The amount of scrolling it would take, to look through that person's album would become too tedious, imo.  But please do clarfy, so I can understnada what you're thinking 

Yes, I meant exactly that.
For an "exhibition" feel.
Maybe pages could take use as new rooms -but,
than it would be better if you could set how many images you want to display on each page. 

[brynn]

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying now.  Since the album view shows the image thumbnails, I'm not sure it makes sense to show them 1 at a time (1 column).  As thumbnails, they are really just sort of a preview of (as well as link to) the intermediate image.  But now that I understand better, let me tell you what options are availalbe.

• The size of the thumbnails (as well as how many are shown by row and column, as I mentioned previously) can be changed.
• The size of the intermediate image can also be changed
• Changing either of the above would cause some unfortunate consequences to images which are already uploaded -- consequences which can be fixed, but would be better avoided, if possible.  However, if there's any time to change them, it's now, before the gallery grows more popular and holds more images.
• I only just now realized that the album thumbnails (which represent the album) can indeed be changed.  So good news there.
• The intermediate image could be eliminated altogether, so that clicking a thumb directly opens the full size image (although that also eliminates the various file infos shown on that page*).
• The view count and comment count are connected to any thumbnails (and also as mentioned before, they can be shown or not).
• Smileys don't have to be available for comments.

Regarding the smileys, at first, I was thinking I would just substitute smileys from the forum (which I think are a better quality).  But in actual use, while I think people might like to use smileys in comments, it seems a little distracting to the image being commented on (example).  As this CPG gallery seems to be designed more for photos, than other grahic arts, smileys would not distract as much from a photo, as from other graphics that potentially could be in the same style as the smileys (i.e. cartoon-like).  So as much as I enjoy smileys, I agree that they could be eliminated from comments, without reducing enjoyment of the gallery.

At the time the gallery was 1st opened, I thought most people would want to load all their images into one album.  That's why I chose to use my forum av for my album thumb.  But that does appear to create a very jumbled-looking display of album thumbnails.  So now I'm thinking I will suggest that people have as many albums as they have different styles or catagories of images.  For example, I'll have an album for my realism or realistic drawings.  Then I have a bunch of drawings made with Spirograph extn, and another batch made with spiro splines (which are mostly just fun and silly).  Because it really did look strange when the spiro-bullwinkle thumbnail showed up right next to the Dictionary of Inkscape thumbnail, before I eliminated that aweful random display.

* Actually that might not be true, that the file info isn't shown.  I'll have to confirm, but it sounds like the full size image would be shown on the intermediate page (which would no longer hold an intermediate image  ) with all the file info still intact.  And if that's the case, with Inkscape images rather than photos, I don't know why an intermediate sized image is even necessary.  I'll update as soon as I know for sure.


So, what does that all mean?  I'm not sure yet.  I'd like to get comments from more people, before I make many changes.  But just theoretically for now, what about this:

• album thumbnails (that represent the album) would be larger, let's say to be the size of current image thumbnails
• image thumbnails would be larger, let's say the size of the current intermediate size (this would allow them to be in 1 column, if that seems to be a  popular idea, but I still might lean towards having at least 2 columns)
• if it's true that the file info is retained, then I don't see any reason to have intermediate images at all, so we go from thumbnail to full size image -- I'll do some more research and let you all know

I'll go and get rid of the comment smileys right now.  And as for the view count and/or comment count, I wonder if  having the larger thumbs, in only 1 or 2 columns, if those text items might not seem so distracting?

And one last note about having the thumbnails in only 1 or 2 columns -- keep in mind that there might be some very small images in the gallery as well.  For example, logos, business card graphics, model car/train/whatever decals, etc..  So if you can imagine, there might be for example, 1 or 2 less than 100 px wide images in a row.  Even if thumbnails are made larger, images smaller than the size of the thumb, will still be that small.  It could still work (and I'm leaning that way) but having larger thumbs with only 1 or 2 images per row will not necessarily result in 1 or 2 images on the screen, in all cases.  (I've even seen some smileys made with Inkscape which are really tiny!)

Ok!  So in some ways, it's "speak now or forever hold your peace" for some of these changes.  So if anyone feels strongly one way or the other, speak up now 

[brynn]

Ok, it looks like the scenario I previously described isn't quite going to work.  There are 2 ways to avoid the intermediate image.

(1)  One is when you click on the thumbnail, the full size image is displayed in a new window the pops up.  Neither the intermediate image or file info can't be seen at all.

(2)  The other way, the intermediate image is never even created (normally the gallery creates it during upload).  Then when you click on the thumbnail, the intermediate page opens, with all the file info, just like before, except the instead of the intermediate image, the full size image is displayed.  For images no larger than approx 800 width x 600 height, this would be the perfect solution.  But for larger images, the result is....well I would say unacceptable.

I temporarily set the gallery not to make an intermediate image, and uploaded a large image, to test.  I couldn't leave it in that configuration, in case someone else happens to want to upload.  But I made a screenshot of the result.  You can compare the screenshot below, to the intermediate page of the same image.

This is really somewhat of a dilemma -- I think for an Inkscape gallery, the intermediate image just isn't necessary.  But neither of these options seem to work.  Hhmmm.......
   
Well, I'll keep studying it