whats needed is something that is simple on the front end to use, to wiki-code and maintain it doesnt matter how good a gadget is if its to hard for people to work with they will switch off, either through preferences, other gadgets or altogether.
I know it may sound horrid from a programmers perspective but priority must be for simple front end solutions that require minimal maintenance by content creators, a switch such as [[File:Foo.jpg|*noview*|.....]] is the easiest solution, or alternatively [[File:Foo.png|icon|.....]] where icon also sets the image to a preselected size of 50px and can only render upto 100px On 14 May 2014 20:50, Krinkle <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd recommend avoiding classes specific to MultimediaViewer for this > purpose. > > The semantic intent here is to mark images that are not considered part of > regular article content. These would be presentational elements like user > interface icons, images part of a larger construct (such as clipped > images, map > pins etc.). It's not at all related to MultimediaViewer and is useful for > other > tools as well. Don't forget that what MMV is doing is by no means new. > Gadgets > like these have existed for years and people will continue to use and > develop > these. This is good; we want people to stay inspired (and even competitive > in a > way). These gadgets would greatly benefit from a simple class name filter > to > replace their current approach (lots of exceptions for arbitrary class > names, > and individual patterns like "Clear crystal" icon). > > Making this MMV-specific would give MMV special treatment resulting in > hacks and > maintenance burdens we don't want. A class like no-mmv" masks the real > intent. > In my experience that would discourage communication between users and > developers when issues arise. Not the users that read it here, but the > users > that copy it further down the line; whom won't know its purpose. > > Making it specific to the idea of a "viewer" (e.g. "no-viewer", > "viewer-exclude", or "for-page-only") is better in my opinion, but only > marginally so. I'd recommend aiming for something that reflects what it is > and > allows separation of concerns. Then have MMV use that in its filters. This > may > mean we'll need two instead of one if the types of images in this category > are > that different, but that would imho be a good thing. > > — Krinkle > > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > -- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________ Multimedia mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
