Extension talk:Media Viewer/About

Requests for Comments: Action Pending
So, the links to the RfCs on Wikipedia itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC) and Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Media_Viewer_software_feature) seems to have been archived, mistakenly no doubt. So I repost them here.

Please would those representing or employed by the WMF care to state here what action is being taken as a result of those RfCs and what is the expected implementation date? I wish to point out that both RfCs show overwhelming consensus that this "Media Viewer" feature should be disabled by default for both logged-in and non logged-in users.


 * Update: Ah, I see what they have planned, you won't guess it: another survey. Right. Keep doing surveys until one of them gives you the result the result you want. I despair. Funny thing is I could only find that link via Google (and btw the first Google auto-complete suggestion for "wikipedia media viewer" is... "disable"). As soon as I saw the link title I smelled bullshit. This is a complete piss-take, gents.

Least astonishment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#mediaviewer/File:World_War_II_Casualties2.svg

This breaks that principle very badly. Going from a graph in a click or two to full size images of people digging their own graves, or bodies from a concentration camp is not a good thing.

Rich Farmbrough 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC).


 * If I open en:World_War_II I can see all of the pics in plain sight anyway. Am I missing something? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC) PS: to make myself clear, in that paragraph I can see the graph and then the pictures you mention right below it. I don't really need to see them full-screen to know what they're about, etc. A bug could be filed requesting that some system is implemented to exclude some pictures from slideshow in MV (which ones? how should this be done? anyway, if this was your request, please let me know!). My point here is merely that this is not how it currently works for slideshows on Commons, for example, and that a similar request would not meet some communities' consensus. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * PPS, I also checked but couldn't find anything related, so we'd file a new bug. Thanks for your feedback, Rich. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In my case I was only interested in the graph, not the other images. I do not recall if they were below the fold or not, nor how I came to navigate to them, I rather think I did not intend to move to the subsequent image at all, but possibly I was hoping for more data, or made a category/navigation/mouse error of some kind - I may have navigated away from the second image in a hurry to the third!  HCI is, of course, a complex issue. Rich Farmbrough 15:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC).

Make Media Viewer image clickable
Normally, I could open the description in new tab with middle-click, and/or open image in new tab with middle-click from the description.

Now, I can open description in new tab, but after opening Media Viewer in the single tab, I can no longer open image in new tab at all. The "open image" icon cannot be middle-clicked and is far too small compared with normal behavior.

--50.136.155.136 23:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The real solution is to restore the clickability of the image, instead of relying on the hard-to-reach icon when trying to view full-size. Extra effort, more of the "modern" "flat" fad.

--50.136.155.136 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is another reason for the MMV behavior, we also have files that are well over multiple megabytes large. Not everyone appreciates downloading those in full either. But I suggest we should find some middle ground there based on the file's properties. TheDJ (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Show categories
Media view is ok, but it would be great if it couls show in the image page the categories link, to surf quickly in case you opened it for mistake. Would be very appreciated by advancer users (like me, uh) --Sailko (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sailko, it already does that. Open an image, scroll down and look to the right: there's a grey tag icon, and some categories are listed there. See also bug 62277. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Grazie elitre --Sailko (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: Quick access to enable/disable, opt-in/opt-out metrics




Hi everyone. We appreciate the ongoing conversation about Media Viewer, and we’ve been discussing practical ways to address concerns and improve metrics used to establish the default configuration for this tool.

With that in mind, we would like to propose a new feature which we think can address many of the issues you reported here: the Viewing Options Panel would make it much easier to disable (or enable) Media Viewer. This feature would prominently display a ‘cog’ icon at the top right corner of the screen, as shown in the thumbnails to the right — and in this rough prototype. Clicking on that icon would display a settings panel with two viewing options:
 * 'View quickly’ — enable Media Viewer (or keep it enabled)
 * 'View all the details’ — disable Media Viewer and show the file page instead

The Viewing Options Panel would let users quickly select the mode that works best for them, switching back and forth to compare them. (Note that Media Viewer already includes a “Disable/Enable’ link, but it is located below the fold and can be hard to find; this new feature would bring it above the fold, where everyone can see it.)

This would make it easier for users to decide for themselves if they want Media Viewer enabled or not. It would also enable us to collect better user data on whether or not this tool is useful -- which can inform our discussions about default state for different user groups. To that end, we plan to track the number of enable and disable events by user group on this existing opt-in/out dashboard (this dashboard now tracks clicks on the “Disable/Enable’ links, which would be replaced by the Viewing Options Panel).

What do you think of this new feature? Does it seem worth developing at this time? Any suggestions for improvement?

We are also considering a controlled experiment on the English Wikipedia. We invite you to comment on that separate proposal on its research page.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts and feedback on Media Viewer. Your comments are really helpful to us, and we look forward to working with you in coming days to find a resolution to your concerns. To be continued, Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you suffer from some kind of impediment that prevents you from ever seeing any feedback which does not suit your agenda? Given your behaviour on this whole "Media Viewer" thing (a hint for you: that's called a web browser and we have had them since '93. No need to reinvent the wheel), I can only conclude that you are being wilfully dishonest and lacking in courage and integrity, aside from simple professional competence. Yes, this is meant as an outright insult because you, Fabrice, are only deserving of the same kind of respect that you show to us users and collaborators, that is to say: none at all.


 * Formally, there is consensus on English Wikipedia that this tool should not be enabled by default. Informally, there appears to be strong consensus on Wikimedia Commons to that effect, and similar sentiments expressed strongly on this discussion page. There is also relevant discussion emerging on the German Wikipedia. Until there is some action on the part of WMF to reduce the intrusion of this inadequate software into the daily experience of many millions of readers, I have no interest in discussing small tweaks to the software. If and when it is changed to "opt-in," I will be happy to discuss improvements. -Pete F (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Peter F. The consensus for "opt-in" is strong. I used to send links to Wikipedia pages to people who are not very computer literate. Now they are confused by the Media Viewer intrusion and are not able to read the page and look at full size images as they normally did in their browser. You guys at WMF are living in an ivory tower and are not aware of the real Internet world. Users and contributors will thank you when you make this thing opt-in and you will not lose face in doing that.--Michel le tigre (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This would be more intuitive to visitors. Right now they possibly do not know what Media Viewer is. With the layout graphics, it more becomes obvious what MediaViewer is. I can't assess whether it's worth though; if it fits your development strategy, implement it. -- Rillke (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Bug - Out of place quotation box on topleft of page
After loading the Wikipedia main page's featured image in Media Viewer and then closing it by clicking the X button on the top-right, the v-shaped corner of a quotation box appears in the top-left corner of the page, near the Wikipedia logo. LokiClock (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi LokiClock, thanks for your feedback! I couldn't reproduce this issue with Chrome or Firefox, though. Can you please share info about your browser/skin/operating system? Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think LokiClock refers to bug #67894. --Miss-Sophie (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Truly dreadful
Please nuke this feature from orbit, it is utterly dreadful and was not needed in the first place!--137.44.100.1


 * I totally agree. I like to zoom in on pictures and manipulate it, which I was perfectly capable of doing before this feature. Like I said when you made a mobile version of Wikipedia for iPad, this is completely unnecessary and it's absolutely awful. Please get rid of it because it's pointless. --147.197.251.157 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I also agree. This is a feature that is detrimental to the use of Wikipedia. I have no idea why anyone would want the media viewer over the old way of presenting content. When I ended up with the Media Viewer, the first thing I did was desperately look for the way to turn it off, hopefully permanently (although it did turn on for me again today for some reason.) This is apparently the pet project of someone important at Wikipedia given it's still around despite the largely negative response I have seen. Well whoever they are, they need to wake up and stop wasting time and resources on this. --76.10.150.197 5:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "We invite you to test Media Viewer as well." The hell you say—you didn't invite me to test it; you inflicted it on me, and forced me to squander 15 minutes of what might've been productive editing time trying to turn this thing off.  I am not interested in "a richer multimedia experience"; I'm trying to add Commons photos to WP articles in an efficient fashion.  This "feature" isn't designed for, or useful to, working WP editors; it's for the sort of people who like to look at funny-cat slide shows with Kenny Loggins soundtracks.  I trust that I've shut it off, and that it'll stay shut off; and I'll be exceedingly vexed if it's again turned on by default. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You can disable media viewer by scrolling down and reading the last line. If you have something specific you dislike, it's useful to mention rather than purely emotional response. Gryllida 00:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It has no redeeming features. It looks like the end result of a board room meeting. 84.45.209.62 21:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Upright formated image is shown in landscape format
rotates in Media Viewer and is then shown in wrong landscape format. --Miss-Sophie (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Added here. Also, thanks for the catch above! Best, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How to exclude images within a template like infoboxes?
How can I use , to exclude a flag symbol in an infobox template from being displayed in Media Viewer? It doesn't work, since the flag is included via a template itself, not in the form. Would one have to change the template? Other images in this infobox are included as something like this:
 * parameter = image.jpg

--Miss-Sophie (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, this was discussed at length in media-related mailing lists, and I believe it was also implemented as per this Mingle card. If the noviewer parameter shouldn't work (I haven't tested it yet), we can ping my colleague Keegan or someone else from the team to tell us more about this. Thanks! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to follow these instructions and according to them I should use in this case. --Miss-Sophie (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the case is probably not covered there? I think infoboxes do not accept the syntax including square brackets. User:Tgr (WMF) surely knows :) --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my point. The syntax is different, so I don't know, what to do. I suppose, one would have to change the template, would have to add the there? But I'm quite unexperienced with editing templates. --Miss-Sophie (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell without seeing the template. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing something like en:Template:Infobox_country, Tgr (WMF). I believe many of them work this way. Clearly this is not the correct syntax in this case :) --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What does the "class=metadata" piece accomplish? Is the code the "correct syntax" with or without it? Does the correctness have to do with how MV behaves, or something else? -Pete F (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why those would have to be hidden in the first place, they seem part of the content to me... But if you do hide them, they would need to be hidden with the noviewer strategy and NOT the metadata strategy, and it would have to be done by changing the implementation of Template:Infobox country. TheDJ (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Pete. According to this page, it might be used in edge cases when you need to disable MV on some pics. However, this Mingle card says something slightly different. It seems to me that the user guide doesn't cover the case where the image is located in an infobox, but I might be wrong (I'm not in the MV team), so one of them will ASAP explain all of this :) TheDJ, it might be that Miss-Sophie is actually trying to hide non-SVG, low-quality icons which might look bad in MV? It's just a guess, she can tell us better. Best, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The syntax that works is probably  but dealing with this inside the parameter value is a really bad idea; the infobox should be changed. (Although personally I agree with TheDJ that these should not be hidden, esp. the coat of arms which is completely unreadable in the size used in the infobox.) Like this, for example (test). --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would guess Miss Sophie might be talking about small icons/insignias, eg, at en:Winston Churchill, the image en:File:UK-Army-OF4.gif (in his infobox) shows up in the slideshow (it's part of en:Template:Infobox officeholder).
 * All of the separate flag icon templates should also be updated with the correct fix (which I believe is the  option). Eg. At enwiki, that'd be all the templates covered by WikiProject_Flag_Template. (but I'm not sure) –Quiddity (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, to stop all the guessing ;-) Quiddity's thoughts about what I might be thinking of go into the right direction. I don't think - and personally was very confused, when I stumbled over this image in the slideshow - the little England flag from the band infobox in this article should be displayed in MV. The help page doesn't give a hint about what to do in this case, where the synax is different (template), and suggested earlier explicitely for flags and small icons to use the metadata class to exclude those images from MV. --Miss-Sophie (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

schaltet den Mist bloß ab
Man wird von de.wikipedia.org hier hergeleitet zum Diskutieren, hier ist aber mal wieder alles Englisch. Wer hat sich denn diesen Schwachsinn einfallen lassen? Recourcenfressend, bevormundende Technik, nicht mehr barrierefrei. Und es ist offenbar der erste große Schritt Richtung Gemeinfreiheit der Inhalte. Lizenzinformationen werden schön klein und im Hintergrund gehalten. Mal sehen, wann man ganz darauf verzichtet. Und dann die Ignoranz von Erik Möller! Was interessieren schon die Leute, die dafür sorgen, daß jährlich Millionen fließen, daß Eloquence & Co. ihren bezahlten Job haben? Denkt mal daran, daß wir Autoren für euer Gehalt sorgen. Aber als Dank scheißt man uns vor den Koffer und macht, was man will. Visual Editor war je wenigstens nur ein Rohrkrepierer, das hier ist aber friendly fire. Es scheint, daß alle Bildautoren vergrault werden sollen. --79.201.211.5 10:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Meinungsbild zum Medienbetrachter in der deutschen Wikipedia
Zur Info: In der deutschen Wikipedia läuft zurzeit ein Meinungsbild darüber, ob der Media Viewer / Medienbetrachter eine Standardeinstellung zum Betrachten von Bildern bleiben soll. --Miss-Sophie (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's finished, it's clear, but the WMF doesn't bother to listen to it's authors. They made a very arrogant answer in the discussion of the MB, that said, in too many words: Nice that you said something, but we rule, we don't give a f*** about the community. The statement sounds like the usual useless stuff marketing people use to utter once someone found moldy stuff in one of it's packages: meaningless blah-blah, no real intention to do anything, that was said, just calming the waves to go on with business as usual. --Sänger S.G (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Solution for truncated source/author information
Will the new feature for showing the truncated source/author information stay like it is now or is it still in development? I'm asking, because it doesn't work that well, but I don't know, if we are already supposed to criticise... --Miss-Sophie (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It will stay as it is now for the time being. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems when researching
Wikipedia has became an important resource for researching information, and the images inluded are useful for projects, academic essays, and other academic uses which require images from the internet.

With the old version, using images and crediting them was a breeze. You could see if the image is under a copyleft license, whom to credit, and etcetera. Let's see this in action: Media viewer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#mediaviewer/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png Normal: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

In the media viewer, all it says that it's under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and that it's uploaded by User:Saperaud. This begs several questions:

Is it the user's own work, or is it a copyleft work by someone else?

What is CC-BY-SA anyways? Do I have to click to go to ANOTHER website? Does it mean Cereal Cooker-Bot Yarp-San Arppy?

Who made this picture? Is it someone other than the user?

A speech bubble says "Click to show full author and source", but the speech bubble is aligned with the title, which when clicked does not do anything. Where do I click? Why is the speech bubble not aligned with the button I should click? Why does it sometimes fail to show? Why does it pop up only after I hovered over the correct place, and then show hundreds of pixels away from the correct button?

Where is the file history? What is that icon? Why do I have to hover over everything to see the "See original file" button?

All of these questions were answered with the normal viewer. (e.g. it was by Robert A. Rohde)Jh1234l (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This image in particular is not using any standard templates that are annotated to enable Machine-readable data. That is the problem. It has little to do with MultimediaViewer. (PDF print, mobile, book print etc etc etc would not attribute the image properly either right now). There is more in the world than just webpages, but unfortunately our image file description pages are 10 years out of date in that regard, and it will be a cleanup operation of another 10 years in that regard. TheDJ (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You say: "[...] image in particular is not using any standard templates that are annotated to enable Machine-readable data. That is the problem." Why is that a problem? Rather it shows the strength, robustness, and sound design of the existing system, as it allows the user to be as expressive as he feels necessary, instead of constraining him to whichever set of properties the developer thought (almost always wrongly) would ever be needed. The design of the file description pages is far from ten years out of date: it has matured for ten years and was doing the job all right until some busybody trying to justify getting a salary out of this supplanted it with a piss-poor designed, untested, and not fit for purpose contraption. If this shows anything, it is that wikimedia developers should a) go back to the Bazaar approach and b) probably should not be paid for their contributions, other than in terms of developer cred. This should certainly be the case with those not doing any actual coding (project leaders and the like).

Suggestions for improvement
Despite the problems that others have pointed out, I like the Media Viewer as a reader because it displays a larger photo on one click than does the original system. However, there are two things that need fixing:

1. The View Original File icon in the bottom right corner of the image should move up when you scroll down rather than disappearing (it gets covered up by the information panel).

2. The Use This File icon needs a tooltip when the user has scrolled down. Or better yet, don't make the "Use this file" text disappear when the user scrolls down.

Many thanks for your attention to these. --Albany NY (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

For me these icons do not disappear (the 'use this file' label does). --Gryllida 00:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To clarify: I have noticed problem #1 in both Firefox 31 and Chrome 36. --Albany NY (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Install
Hi I'm Representing a wiki community (i would like to keep the community a secret) ,my firend and i just browsing through Wikipedia bahasa indonesia and discover this feature and like to use it in our wiki ,please send the answer to my email ezraelvio@yahoo.co.id on how to install this kind of feature in small wiki 139.193.181.94 18:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Extension:MultimediaViewer for install instructions. (I have also e-mailed as you requested.) Gryllida 00:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

MediaViewer should be able to show image description
When I use the left-right navigation to see other images in an article, it'd be nice to see image description (the long one, not the file name). --Gryllida 00:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean it would be nice to see it without scrolling? --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured Pictures
Shouldn't there be something that lets you know if the picture you are viewing is a Featured Photo and/or has appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page? It would be kind of nice to have.Ug5151 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

buggy and annoying
I find the new image viewer to be a drag. While it is nice to have an album-like method to view all images in an article, just too much information is being lost. One notable example besides the already-mentioned image descriptions, is the fact that articles often contain layered images, eg. an SVG with additional markings or an additional legend. When I try to zoom in, these are all lost, and I can only see the basically meaningless base image (the lowest layer). I don't know whether the old image viewer did it any better, but this is a major nuisance. I consider the loss of information to be a serious bug. 80.135.158.107 11:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Disableing doesn't work
If I click on disable Media Viewer, as described above, nothing changes. Well, almost nothing changes, the text I just click changes to enable Media Viewer. Wikipedia becomes more and more useless every day.


 * At first I observed the same result, but try purging the cache; that did it for me. In Chrome, that means Ctrl+Shift+R. You'll have to figure it out on your own for any other browser. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=purge+browser+cache -- D. F. Schmidt (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please remove! No zoom
Why there is no possibility to zoom?

Congratulations!!!
Job very well done, lads. Here is a testimonial of a user's reaction to this great tool: http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=747755 I can see how thorough your user testing was. Awesome, truly awesome.

I love it
It would be great if you also could make the star become yellow if there are new changes on your watchlist. That way I would not have to bother with e-mail notifications or RSS-feeds. --Spannerjam (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How was this image created?
The technology for producing representative images has improved in two divergent ways: new machines for capturing images from nature are used in many fields of study without being understood by laymen. These technologies include telescopic (e.g. Hubble Telescope), microscopic enhancements, using alternative electromagnet wavelengths (e.g. infrared) or other inputs such as sound. At the same time sophisticated computer-generated artwork can easily be created so that conceptual drawings appear to be simple photographs. Given these factors, explanations should regularly be provided with images. For example in the article on Solar Wind the image showing the heliospheric current sheet looks like a pink flower or ballerina's skirt. There's no explanation of how it was created, so it raises the question: If I could place myself in the right spot (outside the helioshere in space)would I see this pretty pink flower? The reader is left to guess from the context and outside knowledge that this is computer generated art. I would like to see an explanation any time an image does not show what the naked eye could see, including substantial edits to photographs.
 * This is interesting feedback. I think it indicates that people are not finding the details page and due to the low amount of details that ARE present in the media viewer panel, are expecting to find all the details here. This would support the ideas of removing details from the media viewer, as was presented during WikiMania. TheDJ (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think having the Expand View button is more than sufficient to provide users access to this tool. It should not be the default viewing option, since it is a hindrance to readers of the Wikipedia, making it less likely they will view and edit the File page. We should do everything possible to encourage readers to edit the Wikipedia, not hinder them from editing it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Is anything ever going to be done about MediaViewer, or has the diktat of the MWF been accepted?

Some pictures still being stretched
Win 7 / IE 11

The problem with pictures sometimes being stretched to about twice their proper width still is not fixed. 19:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Goals Conflict With User Requirements
On the main page one of the goals given is: « Reduce confusion when users click on thumbnails (bypass duplicate file info page on Wikipedias) ».

Then, the user stories (no doubt collected from actual users, right?), say:


 * « find basic information »
 * « find more information »
 * « view all the file details »
 * « add or correct information »

Aside from noting that the existing implementation already did that, to the complete satisfaction of every user, I also note that those requirements conflict with the goal to "bypass duplicate file info".