+
+
+ 
+
+
+
+*** /home/kat/files/repos/ikiwiki_smcv/IkiWiki/Plugin/album.pm 2013-12-18 14:50:06.861623226 +1100
+--- album.pm 2013-12-18 15:51:09.393582879 +1100
+***************
+*** 484,489 ****
+--- 484,490 ----
+ my $viewer = $params{page};
+ my $album = $pagestate{$viewer}{album}{album};
+ my $image = $pagestate{$viewer}{album}{image};
++ my $thumbnailsize = $pagestate{$album}{album}{thumbnailsize};
+
+ return unless defined $album;
+ return unless defined $image;
+***************
+*** 495,501 ****
+
+ if ($template->query(name => 'thumbnail')) {
+ $template->param(thumbnail =>
+! thumbnail($viewer, $params{destpage}));
+ }
+ if (IkiWiki::isinlinableimage($image)
+ && ($template->query(name => 'imagewidth') ||
+--- 496,502 ----
+
+ if ($template->query(name => 'thumbnail')) {
+ $template->param(thumbnail =>
+! thumbnail($viewer, $params{destpage}, $thumbnailsize));
+ }
+ if (IkiWiki::isinlinableimage($image)
+ && ($template->query(name => 'imagewidth') ||
+
+
+-- [[KathrynAndersen]]
+
+> I haven't tried this change, but it seems sane. I'll apply it
+> when I next work on this plugin.
+>
+> (OOI: why not a unified diff? The VCS world seems to have
+> settled on those as universal, and I find them easier to
+> read.)
+>
+> --[[smcv]]
+
+>> Fixed in `album5` --s
+
+----
+
+### bug: inability to show more than 10 items
+
+I've found another bug. The album plugin doesn't allow one to have more than 10 items in an album section. This is because it uses "inline" to display album sections, and the default for inline is to show only 10 items. So it only shows 10 items.
+
+What would be good is if the album directive could have a "show" parameter which is passed on to preprocess_inline, so that users could decide how many items to show (including ALL of them, if they give show=0).
+
+-- [[KathrynAndersen]]
+
+> My intention was that all items would always be shown, so I would always pass
+> `show => 0` to `preprocess_inline` (as kjs suggested above), but that must have
+> got lost somewhere. I'll apply it next time I work on this plugin.
+>
+> An optional `show` parameter would be a possible enhancement beyond that,
+> although I don't know how useful it would be; if it isn't passed, the
+> default should be 0 (unlimited). --[[smcv]]
+
+>> Fixed in `album5` --s
+
+----
+
+### cbaines' commit to change default thumbnail size
+
+Regarding commit `Change the default thumbnail size`: as far as I
+understand it, `size => 96x96` is meant to set the image size to
+be as large as possible given these constraints: width ⤠96px,
+height ⤠96px, and the original aspect ratio is preserved. So I
+would hope that 96x96 doesn't distort the thumbnails. What distortion
+are you seeing, and which versions of Imagemagick and Perlmagick
+are you using?
+
+--[[smcv]]
+
+> I rebuilt the examples using both your album4 and album5 branches, and I only
+> see this in the album4 branch. So this is probably ok to ignore.
+> --[[cbaines]]
+>
+>> OK, I'll assume that was a duplicate of an earlier patch, probably the
+>> one from KathrynAndersen. --s
+
+"""]]
+
+----
+
+## wishlist + patch: make clicking on the large image go to the next
+
+I've changed the behavior of the "slideshow" to show the next image when clicking the large image as downloading a full resolution image is a rare use case in a gallery of this type imho. The large clicktarget means you are likely to unnecessarily download large files otherwise. I can't quite follow the template, album.pm flow so I can't figure out how to put a "download full resolution" link on the viewer page which would be my next step. To achieve the next link i added ` link => ($nextpage or $album),` around line 454 in `my $img`
+
+--kjs
+
+> That seems reasonable. I'll consider that when I work on this
+> plugin again next. --[[smcv]]
+
+----
+
+## wishlist from kjs
+
+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.
+- 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.
+
+--kjs
+
+> I want the first two of those too, perhaps one day I'll get round to
+> implementing them.
+>
+> For the third, you can get the same practical effect using an inline
+> as documented in the main page. --[[smcv]]
+>> The downside to current behaviour is that clicking an inlined thumbnail will take you to the original album context. Previous/Next image will not match the thumbnails in the inline but the thumbnails in the album. This is a bit confusing for users and prevents using the image in multiple contexts without duplicating the image. To achieve what I'm looking for there would have to be several AlbumViewer pages for a single image. --kjs
+>>
+>>> Hmm, OK. That breaks the "one picture : one page" mental model,
+>>> unfortunately. The pictures themselves can't be first-class wiki pages (see
+>>> lengthy design discussions with Joey above) because they aren't something
+>>> that produces HTML, and don't have human-readable text source code.
+>>> 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. --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
+>>>> 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.
+>>>>
+>>>> --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
+>>> picture of Alice and Bob in the album "holiday in Exampleton, 2010",
+>>> and it is tagged people/alice, people/bob and places/exampleton; the
+>>> other contexts it appears in might include "pictures of Alice" and
+>>> "pictures near Exampleton". If you look at the tag page for
+>>> places/exampleton, I doubt you want to see that photo listed three
+>>> 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"
+>>> (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?
+>>> --s
+
+>>> * 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?
+>>> * Is there any need for it to be possible to make a wikilink
+>>> to that particular picture in that particular context,
+>>> or does it only need wikilinks "to the picture" (which,
+>>> as an implementation detail, really go to its "main" viewer
+>>> page)?
+>>> * Can the picture in that particular context have tags
+>>> that are orthogonal to the tags its "main" viewer page has?
+>>> * ... and so on for various wiki features
+>>>
+>>> It sound as though the answer might ideally be that this secondary
+>>> viewer page doesn't need to be a first-class wiki page at all,
+>>> only a HTML output... except that the trail plugin works in terms
+>>> of next and previous first-class wiki pages, not next and
+>>> previous HTML outputs, and the HTML-generation pipeline
+>>> is really aimed towards real pages.
+>>>
+>>> Perhaps the secondary viewer page should end up looking
+>>> something like this:
+>>>
+>>> \[[!albumviewer original=holiday-in-exampleton-2010/img1234
+>>> comment="To edit picture metadata, edit the original page instead"]]
+>>>
+>>> 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` --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
+>>>> (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.
+>>>> --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
+>>>> 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]]
+
+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
+
+Regarding the CSS changes: I'll try to have a look soon, work out
+what actually changed (since you re-ordered the CSS, so it isn't
+immediately obvious from the diff), and integrate some or all of your
+changes. Since Joey shows no signs of wanting to merge it, and "out of tree"
+installation is currently a pain, I might split out the CSS changes into a
+separate `ikiwiki/album.css` so that the only thing that needs to be merged
+into style.css (or into local.css) is an appropriate
+`@import` rule.
+
+It shouldn't be necessary to add the album stuff to each individual
+theme's style.css unless you actually want an actiontabs album and
+a blueview album to be styled differently, because the IkiWiki Makefile
+concatenates them: for instance, `/usr/share/ikiwiki/themes/actiontabs/style.css`
+is the output of `cat doc/style.css themes/actiontabs/style.css`. So adding it
+to `doc/style.css` should be enough? --[[smcv]]
+
+> I don't think this is the case? Or at least, looking at the generated
+> stylesheet for the examples built using my branch, I would expect there to be
+> two copies of the album rules in the stylesheet [1], but there does not
+> appear to be. This could quite easily be a result of some mistake in my part
+> in not isolating the build though. --[[cbaines]]
+>
+> 1: