diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn | 63 |
1 files changed, 60 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn index a8779e279..70fcf4924 100644 --- a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn +++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn @@ -650,7 +650,18 @@ My wishlist for the plugin would include: >>> created to go alongside the pictures are basically stand-ins for the >>> pictures, as far as metadata, wikilinks, tags and other "first-class >>> wiki page" things are concerned. ->>> + +>>>> I can see why it's important to keep these models simple and have figured out +>>>> that the viewer pages are stand-ins for the image. Just as a tought though. If +>>>> this relationship was made more explicit ie. the viewer pages *are the content* +>>>> just initially generated from the image metadata with a link to the image. Then +>>>> the mental model would stay intact and more in line with how html and the +>>>> implementation works. +>>>> +>>>> One thing to point out is that last time I tried pages can be members of +>>>> arbitrary numbers of trails/albums. You just get multiple rows of navigation, one +>>>> for each trail. This doesn't quite work as it's hard to know which one to click. + >>> If there are to be viewer pages elsewhere in the wiki, I don't think >>> inheriting the picture's metadata is desired. Suppose you have a >>> picture of Alice and Bob in the album "holiday in Exampleton, 2010", @@ -661,14 +672,18 @@ My wishlist for the plugin would include: >>> times - once is enough, there's only one actual photo after all. So >>> I think the "main" viewer page should be the only one that has >>> the taglinks for people/alice, people/bob, places/exampleton. ->>> + +>>>> The problem exposed by the tag page issue is very tricky. As you'd +>>>> probably want the exif info, captions and titles to transfer. Just not +>>>> necessarily the tags. + >>> My next question is, should the viewer page representing that >>> particular picture in its context of "pictures near Exampleton" >>> (i.e. its "next" and "previous" links go to the next and >>> previous picture near Exampleton, regardless of whether it was >>> on an earlier or later visit) be a first-class wiki page >>> at all? ->>> + >>> * Does it make any sense to comment on "this picture in this >>> context", if your wiki has comments, or should the only >>> place you can comment on it be its "main" viewer page? @@ -697,6 +712,48 @@ My wishlist for the plugin would include: >>> and one of the side-effects of the albumviewer directive should be to >>> replace [[plugins/comments]] with a link to the original? --s +>>>> One thing to consider is the built in difference between the original and +>>>> the secondary inferred by the fact that the first is an `album` the second +>>>> an `inline` + +>>>> ### Single viewer +>>>> For my own usecase what you describe makes sense. I see the content of an inline object +>>>> (struggling a bit with what terms to user here) as a particular composition of +>>>> viewers. Perhaps comments should only be possible on the page with the inline rather +>>>> than the secondary viewer pages as the inline page not the image viewer is +>>>> the first-class page in this scenario? The inline page would also be the page you tag +>>>> etc. to make it show up in various contexts such as the tag page. +>>>> +>>>> With the thinking outlined above I'd say that the secondary viewer should be a +>>>> non editable clone of the original viewer without any source. Just html output with +>>>> backlinks to the original page. This means that there are limitations to how these +>>>> secondary viewers can be used as the title, caption etc might fit some contexts +>>>> better than others. Personally this is fine as I see these inline based albums as +>>>> compositions or views on existing content. +>>>> +>>>> ###Multiple viewers alternative +>>>> The alternative is having a page say in `/story/album.mdwn` with the following directive +>>>> \[[!inline pages="/01/IMGP6494 or /02/IMGP6601 or /04/IMGP6922" sort="title" show="0" template="albumitem"]] +>>>> that creates new fully fledged editable viewers for each image in `/story/album/' +>>>> without tags being auto populated but backlinks to the original album viewer. +>>>> +>>>> This would make the viewers completely independent allowing for unique titles, captions and comments +>>>> depending on context. Very useful when creating powerpoint like slideshows where you might need +>>>> different captions depending on the context. In your example wiki with photos from gigs this would allow +>>>> a page with an album inline about stage lighting with a selections of images and captions that highlight +>>>> relevant things in the image as well as a separate inline album page, with some of the same images, +>>>> about drumming styles and posture/grip of drummers. +>>>> +>>>> I started writing all this supporting your single page case but looking at it now from my limited +>>>> understanding of how ikiwiki works it seems the multiple viewers option is conceptually cleaner +>>>> and more flexible. It relies on three things: + +>>>> * A mental model where the viewer page is the content not the image +>>>> * That tags aren't automatically transferred from the original context. This doesn't seem that critical however. +>>>> * Backlinks to the other places the image is used. +>>>> +>>>> --[[kjs]] + ---- ## cbaines' CSS changes |