X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/50c400f0c447e58f9357620066636b6a17f9eeaa..365e11783b741e459f4c1cb3595def5211442c2e:/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn?ds=sidebyside diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn index 70fcf4924..a60de0b2a 100644 --- a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn +++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn @@ -628,8 +628,14 @@ I've changed the behavior of the "slideshow" to show the next image when clickin My wishlist for the plugin would include: -- Reading exif info from the imagefile -- ~~Keeping the full resolution image files out of version control~~ Solved this by simply creating a underlay for the images. Works out of the box for my non cgi workflow. +[[!template id=gitbranch branch=kjs/album6-imgmeta author="[[Kalle Söderman|kjs]]"]] + +- ~~Reading exif info from the imagefile~~ + - I have now implemented this (in some fashion) and the patch is available in my album6-imgmeta branch. --kjs + +- ~~Keeping the full resolution image files out of version control~~ Solved +this by simply creating a underlay for the images. Works out of the box for my +non cgi workflow. - Being able to create new albums by tag or by manually picking images from other albums. Could be a simple comma separated list of viewer names, or even full urls, in the album directive. - A counter showing **current image/total number of images in album**. This would mean that you know how many images you have left to click through before you have seen all images in an album. This gives you enought info to decide weather to click through or go back/leave. @@ -649,7 +655,7 @@ My wishlist for the plugin would include: >>> In the current (album5) design, the viewer pages that are automatically >>> 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. +>>> wiki page" things are concerned. --s >>>> 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 @@ -661,6 +667,15 @@ My wishlist for the plugin would include: >>>> 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. +>>>> +>>>> --k + +>>>>> Pages can be part of arbitrarily many trails, yes - that's a consequence of +>>>>> how trails are created. If you can think of a better way to present a page +>>>>> that's in more than one trail, I'd welcome ideas... I did originally have an +>>>>> implementation where only one trail would generate links, but when I tried +>>>>> it on some (rather artificial) overlapping trails, the result was more +>>>>> confusing. --s >>> 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 @@ -672,10 +687,12 @@ 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. +>>> --s >>>> 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. +>>>> --k >>> My next question is, should the viewer page representing that >>> particular picture in its context of "pictures near Exampleton" @@ -683,6 +700,7 @@ My wishlist for the plugin would include: >>> previous picture near Exampleton, regardless of whether it was >>> on an earlier or later visit) be a first-class wiki page >>> at all? +>>> --s >>> * Does it make any sense to comment on "this picture in this >>> context", if your wiki has comments, or should the only @@ -714,7 +732,19 @@ My wishlist for the plugin would include: >>>> 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` +>>>> an `inline` --k + +>>>>> I had assumed that both the "original" album (the one where the picture +>>>>> is physically located), and any other places you wanted to display it, +>>>>> would be some other directive whose implementation includes a call to +>>>>> `preprocess_inline`. `inline` on its own is not enough to create +>>>>> viewer pages to display the pictures, regardless of whether you +>>>>> want them to be one-per-picture or many-per-picture, and I'm not +>>>>> going to wedge yet more functionality into that plugin :-) +>>>>> +>>>>> It might be a good idea for the thing that displays pictures not +>>>>> physically located below that point to be a different directive, yes. +>>>>> --s >>>> ### Single viewer >>>> For my own usecase what you describe makes sense. I see the content of an inline object @@ -730,13 +760,30 @@ My wishlist for the plugin would include: >>>> 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. +>>>> --k +>>>> +>>>>> This is basically what I thought at first, but I realised while +>>>>> writing my earlier comments that it would be necessary +>>>>> to hack up [[plugins/trail]] fairly seriously to make it produce +>>>>> a trail through things that are not first-class wiki pages, and +>>>>> I'm not sure how much it would be necessary to subvert the +>>>>> rendering pipeline to get the right parentlinks and so on. --s >>>> >>>> ###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. ->>>> +>>>> --k +>>>> +>>>>> It can't *only* be an inline, because an inline wouldn't generate the +>>>>> viewer pages, but I see what you mean. --s +>>>>> +>>>>>> That's actually excellent as the inline is a very useful feature +>>>>>> the way it works now. I started writing about this yesterday but +>>>>>> got interrupted. My indexes of albums use the inline in it's current +>>>>>> form. --k +>>>> >>>> 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 @@ -754,6 +801,10 @@ My wishlist for the plugin would include: >>>> >>>> --[[kjs]] +I've added "--k" to some of your comments so other readers (possibly including +my future self) can keep track of our conversation, I hope you don't mind :-) +--s + ---- ## cbaines' CSS changes @@ -784,3 +835,61 @@ to `doc/style.css` should be enough? --[[smcv]] > >> I searched for `/* relevant to the index page */` and found it twice, >> so I stand by what I said :-) --s +>> +>>> And right you are, unsure how I missed that. My album branch is now rebased +>>> on your album5 branch (with the two now useless commits removed). +>>> --[[cbaines]] + +cbaines, would you mind publishing an album with more realistic pixel-sizes +of images using your modified CSS? It's difficult to get an idea of how it +will degrade under conditions like "image size > browser window" with +images as small as the ones you used. You might find + +(`git clone git://git.pseudorandom.co.uk/git/smcv/ikiwiki-demos/ikialbum.git`), +or the same techniques, useful: it contains images with a realistic pixel +count, but very very lossy JPEG compression, to keep the size in bytes low. + +> I have now created a large (images) example, you can find all the examples +> here [1]. I have also built all the examples with the album5 branch, you can +> find the results here [2]. +> +> 1: +> 2: + +It's much, much easier to review changes if you use separate commits for +cosmetic changes like "separate index CSS from viewer CSS" and "more +consistent indentation", and functional changes like turning the prev/next +links from absolutely-positioned to floating. I'd be happy to apply +the cosmetic changes if they were in commits that were literally only +cosmetic changes, with no functional effect. + +> I have now rewritten the CSS changes to get a smaller diff. The only big +> functional change is from the previous patch is the max-width stuff to cope +> better with large images. + +For the functional bits: I think I'd have used floating boxes instead of the +absolutely-positioned boxes that are currently used if they provided the effect +I wanted. I can't remember exactly why I didn't do that now, but +it might have been because if the browser window shrinks below the image width, +floats have weird behaviour (they push the actual image out of the way), or because +I wanted the entire left/right margin of the image to be clickable to have +a large click-target for scrolling through the album. + +If there's something specific that you think is wrong with the CSS in my +branch, could you please explain it, and perhaps we can come up with something +that matches both our requirements? + +--smcv + +> I don't think that something specific is wrong with CSS in the album5 branch, +> but it does not display large [3], or small [4] images very well. It might be +> possible to resolve the image size issues without changing from absolute +> positioning, but I felt (for no particular reason) that I would do it using +> floats. +> +> The clickable region on the margin seems the most likely reason to me to go +> with absolute positioning, as an initial look at doing this with floats +> suggests that it is non-trivial. +> +> 3: +> 4: