13 replies to this topic

[John Stuart-Clarke]

I would appreciate it if some of you would help trial a new feature I am considering launching. All you have to do is:

• Post an image into a new image gallery, which you can find here: http://www.wildphoto...photo-critique/. Please don't post more than one image so that the maximum number of members can participate in the trial.
  
• Only contribute content that you don't mind being deleted as it *may* be necessary for me to amend or delete your content as part of the trial or if the trial is deemed a failure.
  
• I would like to get at least a couple of dozen images into the trial, so that it is representative of real world use.
  
• Size your image at 1,600 pixels for horizontals or 1,200 for verticals. The 250kb file size limit remains in force for now.
  
• Browse through the images that other members contribute and comment on them in much the same way as you would in the wildlife photo critique forum.
  
• Experiment with any other features you find in this gallery - click the buttons and be curious.
  
• Finally, share your feedback on the features and functionality in the Member Feedback Forum.

Thanks in advance to those of you who decide to participate

[Barry Fisher]

Hi John,
I've just noticed that when one clicks on an image in your new gallery it appears to get distorted into a different format when it appears larger on the screen compared to how it was formated and how it appears in the gallery before clicking on it?

[John Stuart-Clarke]

Can you put up a screen garb Barry, I'm not sure what you mean. It should work like the other galleries except that there is no pre-emptive moderation and all members can contribute.

[John Stuart-Clarke]

Scrub that, I think I know what you mean now... it's time to elaborate on some of the new functionality we are trialling

Support for Multiple Image Sizes

Although I have asked members to upload images at 1,600/1,200 pixels, they won't initially be displayed at those sizes. Images will be displayed in a square thumbnail format when browsing through the gallery, then in various larger sizes in the original aspect ratio when viewed individually. You can get to these alternatively sized images by clicking on an image thumbnail in the gallery (to show the image alone, on its own page), then by right-clicking on the image. You will then see this pop-up:



Benefits of Multiple Image Sizes

I have highlighted the image size options that you can now choose to view the image at. Square and Small are presets that I cannot change. But I can choose the size values for the Medium and Large sized images (that's why I asked members to upload large image files), so this gives me the ability to set Medium to e.g. 720 pixels (or even e.g. 900 pixels for landscape orientation and 720 pixels for portrait orientation) and use some bigger values for the Large size. This gives much more flexibility in that it allows us to provide images that will suit a wider range of viewing devices.

Further Work

It's not all good news - the default layout and navigation is horrible. So there needs to be some design work to improve this before it is ready for general usage. But nevertheless, there is sufficient potential here I think to trial this now and get some feedback from you all. If people like this format, the plan is to move the image-oriented topics over to this new format but continue to use the forums for discussion-oriented topics. But to ensure one does not get lost behind the other, I will redesign the home page so that both are listed alongside each other, having equal prominence.

[Kiri]

My main query is how to deal with edits if you want to follow up on critique comments? In the reply box if you click on the my media box if comes up with a list of all your attachments so you could theoretically upload an image into that then select it and insert into the reply, but I can't find how you would add something into my media through that option or through my profile page?

[John Stuart-Clarke]

Kiri, on 07 February 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

My main query is how to deal with edits if you want to follow up on critique comments?

That's a current drawback... there does not appear to be an easy way to add reposted images after an edit. That's fine for non-critique images but not ideal for critique ones. I am convinced the functionality is there but it's well hidden

As people ask questions and make discoveries, I will begin to compile a pros & cons list so that there is a single summary of what these changes would involve.

[Mark Wilson]

I like the presentation of the larger image and the way the image is the main event - much nicer that the traditional forum view.

Is there a way to bring the forward and back buttons to a more prominent position? I feel I want to step back and forward through the images but the controls are not 'obvious'.

[John Stuart-Clarke]

Mark, yes, this can be accomplished quite easily. I would also make the slideshow mode more obvious and remove useless buttons like those for rotating images.

Still offline so that is it from me until the 15th or 16th...

[Des]

I think the layout looks interesting John, but as a working photographer, the thing that puts me off is the image size. I'm not comfortable having my stuff in the www larger than 900px on the longest side. What would you gain by going this large?

[John Robinson]

I quite like the set up "as is," but if the text etc were smaller there would be less need to move to new pages.
JR

[John Stuart-Clarke]

Des, on 15 February 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

I think the layout looks interesting John, but as a working photographer, the thing that puts me off is the image size. I'm not comfortable having my stuff in the www larger than 900px on the longest side. What would you gain by going this large?

Des, that's something I would like more feedback on from the membership. Perhaps 900 pixels is as big as people want to go? In which case, I would respect that. As the galleries allow a "medium" and a "large" image to be generated, this could be accomplished by setting the minimum required image size to the "medium" dimensions but allowing members who wish to to upload images at the "large" image size. By making the default viewing size "medium", there would be a consistent view across all images and the option to see larger versions, when available.

As for motivation, it is simply that we have members who prefer larger images and members who prefer smaller images, so I am trying to find ways to accommodate the broadest possible range of preferences.

John Robinson, on 16 February 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

I quite like the set up "as is," but if the text etc were smaller there would be less need to move to new pages.
JR

That's an interesting comment John - by "text", do you mean the EXIF data or the whole of the text box when a member replies to a topic?

[John Robinson]

John
Basically it was just the look of the whole page when you open up say the wildlife forum> The rows could be narrowere meaning there would be more on the page. No big deal though.
JohnR

[John Stuart-Clarke]

John Robinson, on 17 February 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Basically it was just the look of the whole page when you open up say the wildlife forum> The rows could be narrowere meaning there would be more on the page. No big deal though.

Glenn is working on something in his spare time to make this view more visual... watch this space

[John Stuart-Clarke]

Thanks to everyone for taking part in this experiment. Some major updates to our site software are in the works so I will hold off any further planning for possible changes relating to the image galleries until I can see what new opportunities they provide us with. I will therefore close off the experimental gallery for now, to avoid confusing members on where to post images.

Thanks for your participation!