Extension talk:FileAnnotations/Design

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

MfortyoneA (talkcontribs)

the tool allows placing rectangular boundaries; might it be an idea to default to octagonal areas - rectangles with some % of the corners clipped off, to better approximate random shapes in images; then offer a UI option to tweak that shape (change to a rectangle, or adjust),

one problem is objects aligned diagonally, rectangles poorly approximate these. without being too fiddly, a couple of octagonal areas could better approximate those. Or you could have a easy few options, without having to go as far as a 'vertex/edge manipulation'/'general polygonal outlines' e.g.


  /===\  default outline shape - octagonal
  |   |
  \===/
  +===+  rectangular
  |   |
  +===+
   /=+   left-diagonal
  /  /
  +=/
  +=\     right-diagonal
  \  \
   \=+

even without adjusting the shape, placing a couple of octagonal regions could better approximate a diagonal region


      /===\  
   /==|\  |
   |  ||  |
   |  \|==/
   \===/
Reply to "suggestion: octagonal boundary"

layered annotations - emphasis/de-emphasis .. 'primary vs secondary', hidden outlines

1
MfortyoneA (talkcontribs)

would it be possible to have layers of emphasis levels on the annotations, e.g. "primary annotations" stand out (as now) with an attention-grabbing outline, whilst "secondary annotations" only have a tooltip visible as you glide the cursor around. When overlapping, the 'primary annotations' would always take precedence.

This would allow people to saturate images with links, allowing maximum discovery without adding visual clutter. Note the possibility of wikipedia users discovering images via 'what links here'.if you link *everything imaginable*, others may discover connections that no individual initially spotted.

the images could function both as a 'visual dictionary', or as translation hints (e.g. imagine if many phrases found in wikipedia have a series of images available to clarify what they are)

Reply to "layered annotations - emphasis/de-emphasis .. 'primary vs secondary', hidden outlines"
Prtksxna (talkcontribs)

Discussing with @Pginer-WMF:

  • Specific examples for personas
    • Like Solar System image for student learning
  • Think about:
    • Different places where annotations can be explored
      • The images
      • List of annotations (useful in the wikimania group photos, search for someone etc)
      • Types of annotations (maybe someone only wants to see the people, or just the places)
    • People encouraged to annotate anything? Like each window in a building? What is the policy? It might be useful to me, but not for anyone else.
    • Find out from both editors and users, if FA becomes common, what kind of things we need to think about
    • Readers suggesting that a certain annotations are useless, and then figure out a process to get rid of them or flag them
    • ImageTweaks, when you crop, there could be an automatic annotation of sorts?
    • Not get in the way of viewing an image
      • Nicer to see the Mona Lisa without the frame being filled with annotations
  • Mockups:
    • Not sure about the scroll by fade-in-out, might become distracting. 
      • Should test with users
      • Add icon? With an indicator of how many annotations there are on this image
      • While it makes sense on the File page, in an article there are already too many elements
    • Notification for encouragement
      • Maybe prompt the user who uploaded, see if there are links in the description
      • Maybe we need to indicate when it is description and when its related
MfortyoneA (talkcontribs)

could annotations be layered, such that you can pervasively link but just not highlight everything to the same extent. e.g. the attention-grabbing outline appears for 'primary' annotations, whilst 'secondary' annotations just get a simple tooltip as you glide the cursor around.

Then people could saturate the pages with links, allowing maximum discovery.

Reply to "Notes from Editing design meeting"
Twillisjr (talkcontribs)

I have been handling various pieces of content with a Template. My interest is for certain things (religious, biological, engineering, etc). How would the page "The Human Skeleton" as a learning tool for some, accomplish this task better than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Twillisjr/sandbox#Human_Skeleton_.28Clickable.29 (Skull and Spinal Column). The project I am working on is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Open_Textbook_of_Medicine and we need the best possible image results. ~~~~

Prtksxna (talkcontribs)

This is really cool. With hovercards enabled, this already does part of what I imagine, though in a hacky way. I'll keep this example in mind when working on prototypes - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151327

Reply to "The Human Skeleton"

Notes from the Multimedia standup

1
Prtksxna (talkcontribs)
  • Could do two separate things mobile/desktop (on file page)
    • Flash for mobile, because they have no hover
      • Listen for focus/unfocus events on the tab/window so we don't flash at nothing
      • Refer to Volker's research to figure out how long the flash needs to be
    • First hover event on image hides annotations for desktop
  • In articles, scroll events that bring you past images could trigger a flash
  • Explore using categories/WD items to look for "people" or what have you, so we can encourage tagging (later feature?)
  • Viewing...
    • Commons category -> five random (or non-random, explore options) images, link to category
    • Wikipedia article -> HoverCards-like summary
    • Wikidata item -> description, links to other projects with context ("learn" via WP, "define" via Wikt, "see more" via Commons, etc.)
    • Map location -> map? (optional)
Reply to "Notes from the Multimedia standup"
MarkTraceur (talkcontribs)
  • We could probably infer from an annotation with one link that it's meant to be a link to the Wikidata item, and go by that. We could also convert Wikipedia/Commons links to WD links either on the fly or in our migration script.
  • Given the types of annotations you found, I think there are cases to be made for Wikidata, plain text, and formatted text annotations. We can go between each type depending on what the user actually inputs (choose wikitext, then only input one link? you get a Wikidata link.)
  • For discovery, the "text at the bottom" option means we aren't as portable, as I discovered when I turned it on for thumbnails. There's now a config option to turn off that alert, but I suspect we can do better.
    • In that same section, there's a mention of "list of all annotations on the page" - what does that look like on non-file pages?
  • For adding annotations, we can use a question/answer interface, like
    • What do you want to say about this part of the image?
      • This is an object, person, place, or concept
        • What is its name? (Wikidata search box)
          • "Barack Obama"
            • Okay, added tag for Barack Obama to the image.
          • "I couldn't find it"
            • Please enter a description in the box below: (wikitext (or plain text?) input)
      • This is text I would like to transcribe
        • What is the text? (wikitext input)
      • This is a part of the image that I have taken a more detailed picture of, and I want to link to that picture.
        • Is the picture on Commons?
          • Yes
            • What is the filename?
          • No
            • Send to UploadWizard? Pop up Upload Dialog?
      • This is a part of the image for which I would like to provide context
        • What's going on here? (wikitext input)

Maybe a few other options, but there's what I thought of off the top of my head.

Jdforrester (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I like the Q&A interface concept for adding new ones.

Reply to "My thoughts"
There are no older topics