>>> 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
+>>>> 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",
>>> 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?
>>> 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
>
>> 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
+<http://git.pseudorandom.co.uk/smcv/ikiwiki-demos/ikialbum.git>
+(`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: <http://cbaines.net/projects/ikiwiki/album/dest/>
+> 2: <http://cbaines.net/projects/ikiwiki/album/dest-album5/>
+
+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: <http://cbaines.net/projects/ikiwiki/album/dest-album5/large-goldtype/album/3/>
+> 4: <http://cbaines.net/projects/ikiwiki/album/dest-album5/basic-blueview/album/ikiwiki_old/>
sipb-www / ikiwiki.git / blobdiff