I tend to agree that a light box or other modalish zoom should become the default behavior.
-- brion On May 30, 2013 5:50 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > For years, I have weeped and wailed about people adding complicated maps > and diagrams as 220px thumbnail images to Wikipedia articles. These sort of > images are virtually useless within an article unless they are displayed at > relatively large sizes. Unfortunately, including them at large sizes > creates a whole new set of problems. Namely, large images mess up the > formatting of the page and cause headers, edit links, and other images to > get jumbled around into strange places (or even overlapping each other on > occasion), especially for people on tablets or other small screens. The > problem is even worse for videos. Who wants to watch a hi-res video in a > tiny 220px inline viewer? If there are subtitles, you can't even read them. > But should we instead include them as giant 1280px players within the > article? That seems like it would be obnoxious. > > What if instead we could mark such complicated images and high-res videos > to be shown in modal viewers when the user clicks on them? For example: > [[File:Highres-video1.webm|**thumb|right|modal|A high res video]]. When > you clicked on the thumbnail, instead of going to Commons, a modal viewer > would overlay across the screen and let you view the video/image at high > resolution (complete with a link to Commons and the attribution > information). Believe it or not, this capability already exists for videos > on Wikipedia, but it's basically a hidden feature of TimedMediaHandler. If > you include a video in a page and set the size as 200px or less, it > activates the modal behavior. Unfortunately, the default size for videos is > 220px (as of 2010) so you will almost never see this behavior on a real > article. If you want to see it, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** > American_Sign_Language#**Variation<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sign_Language#Variation>and > click on one of the videos. Compare that with the video viewing > experience at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Congenital_insensitivity_to_ > **pain <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain>. > It's a world of difference. Now imagine that same modal behavior at > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Cathedral_Peak_Granodiorite#** > Geological_overview<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_Peak_Granodiorite#Geological_overview>and > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Battle_of_Jutland<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland> > . > > Such an idea would be relatively trivial to implement. The steps would be: > 1. Add support for a 'modal' param to the [[File:]] handler ( > https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/**r/#/c/66062/<https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/66062/> > ) > 2. Add support for the 'modal' param to TimedMediaHandler ( > https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/**r/#/c/66063/<https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/66063/> > ) > 3. Add support for the 'modal' param to images via some core JS module > (not done yet) > > As you can see, I've already gotten started on adding this feature for > videos via TimedMediaHandler, but I haven't done anything for images yet. I > would like to hear people's thoughts on this potential feature and how it > could be best implemented for images before doing anything else with it. > What are your thoughts, concerns, ideas? > > Ryan Kaldari > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l> _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
