> > Buttons is French: Suiv. -> Make it English > That's a bug in SurveyMonkey, the buttons are in French because I was using the French version of the site at the time the survey was created, and now that text on those buttons can't be fixed. I'll make sure to switch SurveyMoney to English before creating the next one.
No "swap" or "overlay" function for being able to compare > SurveyMonkey is quite limited, it can't do that, unfortunately. The alternative would be to build my own survey from scratch, but that would be require a lot of resources for little benefit. This is really a one-off need. > I wonder if the mip-mapping approach could somehow be combined with tiles? > If we want proper zooming for large images, we will have to split them up > into tiles of various sizes, and serve only the tiles for the visible > portion when the user zooms on a small section of the image. Splitting up > an image is a fast operation, so maybe it could be done on the fly (with > caching for a small subset based on traffic), in which case having a chain > of scaled versions of the image would take care of the zooming use case as > well. Yes we could definitely have the reference thumbnail sizes be split up on the fly to generate tiles, when we get around to implementing proper zooming. It's as simple as making Varnish cache the tiles and the php backend generate them on the fly by splitting the reference thumbnails. Regarding the survey I ran on wikitech-l, so far there are 26 respondents. It seems that on the images with a lot of edges (the test images provided by Rob) at least 30% of people can tell the difference in terms of quality/sharpness. On regular images people can't really tell. Thus, I wouldn't venture to do the full chaining, as a third of visitors will be able to tell that there's a quality degradation. I'll run another survey later in the week where instead of full chaining all the thumbs are generated based on the biggest thumb. On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Gergo Tisza <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Gilles Dubuc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Another point about picking the "one true bucket list": currently Media > > Viewer's buckets have been picked based on the most common screen > > resolutions, because Media Viewer tries to always use the entire width of > > the screen to display the image, so trying to achieve a 1-to-1 pixel > > correspondence makes sense, because it should give the sharpest result > > possible to the average user. > > > > I'm not sure the current size list is particularly useful for MediaViewer, > since we are fitting images into the screen, and the huge majority of > images are constrained by height, so the width of the image on the screen > will be completely unrelated to the width bucket size. Having common screen > sizes as width buckets would be useful if we would be filling instead of > fitting (something that might make sense for paged media). > > ------ > > I wonder if the mip-mapping approach could somehow be combined with tiles? > If we want proper zooming for large images, we will have to split them up > into tiles of various sizes, and serve only the tiles for the visible > portion when the user zooms on a small section of the image. Splitting up > an image is a fast operation, so maybe it could be done on the fly (with > caching for a small subset based on traffic), in which case having a chain > of scaled versions of the image would take care of the zooming use case as > well. > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
