Media highlight / thumb selectors
Brought to you by:
canajun2eh,
yalnifj
Menu
▾
▴
This is a folow-up to this bug report:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2672126&group_id=55456&atid=634867
Up to recently when adding a new media item the two drop-down boxes "Highlight" and "Thumb" both defaulted to 'blank', or 'none'.
A recent change (in svn only so far) has altered the default for "Thumb" to 'no'. his is a sensisble move, in my view, as it is a more positive statement than 'none', and avoids the risk of an editing user from accidentally setting it to 'yes', which in the majority of setups would result in very large thumbnail on the individual page header.
However, I also feel that the default for 'Highlight' should also be 'No' - but there are differing views on this. So I'm keen to see what the majority opinion is.
The function of that setting is to determine which image, when there is more than one attached to an individual, is used as the 'highlighted' image on their INDI page, and on all charts. If set to 'Yes' for a specific image, that image is the one disdplayed. If none of the images are set to 'Yes' then one of two things happen:
1 - if they are all blank (the current default), then the first one found is the one displayed. This can result in 'odd' images like gravestones, certificates, logos, etc being displayed.
2 - if they are all set to "no", then none will be displayed.
My preference is to set default to "no" (but not change existing settings). This ensures that the choice of highlighted image is a deliberately made one.
What are other's views?
I would go along with a default of "no" as long as the behaviour of the default image selection is altered as follows:
(a) select the first (or only) image with Highlight set to "Yes"
(b) select the first (or only) image with Highlight set to blank or missing entirely
(c) select the first (or only) image, completely ignoring Highlight.
I'm not too sure what the intent was with the "blank" option.
Let's get rid of "blank" as a choice, and add an option "Never" to positively identify images that should never be used as the main image.
If we get rid of the blank option, what should a missing or existing blank Highlight option mean?
I vote
1) Reorder and title the available choices to: No, Yes, Never (No Blank) Default of NO.
2) No change to existing data display:
NONE will highlight media if no other PRIM exists
YES will highlight media if the only or first PRIM item
NO will not highlight media
3) THUM: As #1 PRIM, Default of NO (as recently changed, tnx)
This would allow all current media to function as is currently captured within the DB and require no logic changes.
-Stephen
I'm not quite following something here. What would the difference be between 'No' and "Never"?
It sounds to me like a very confusing set of options:
No(default)
Yes
Never
Why not just Yes or No? Blank will inevitable continue to exist anyway, for existing and imported GEDCOM data. We just won't be creating anymore.
Other than that distinction, I would agree with Gery's a,b,c. Ideally though I (personally) would exclude c) completely.
Just one other complication (perhaps) - the media item (0 @Mxxx@ tag) can have one set of "_PRIM and _THUMB tags; and the INDI / FAM record (1 OBJE @Mxxx@ tag) for the same media item can have another that over-ride the "default"). But this is probably not an issue. Just thought it should be considered.
The "No", "Yes", "Never" would affect the Random Media block.
"No" and "Yes" images can be selected for the Random Media block, "Never" cannot be selected.
The "No" and "Yes" options are needed just to balance each other. Users would expect that -- you can't have "No" meaning something other than the opposite of "Yes".
It just happens that I have just had to deal with this exact issue.
For one individual, I had uploaded two pdf census files. Later I uploaded a group picture. Inside that group picture was the individual I was working with, and I had intended to later crop that picture that I could use as the highlighted image.
When I uploaded the group picture, I did not specify highlight as I knew I would replace it later with the cropped picture. The problem was that since everything was left as blank, the first pdf file uploaded was still preffered over the group picture.
The solution was to select 'No' for highlight for any non-image file such as a pdf. I assume then that these will not be displayed even if no other images exist for that individual. Then, if ANY picture was uploaded later, and left as 'blank' for the highlight, it would temporarily fill in until a specific photo was chosen later for the highlight.
My conclusion is just to leave everything as it is, and the users will just have to be aware to choose 'No' for the highlight for any non-image file, and leave all photos set as 'blank' until the preferred photo comes along.
Now what if you don't like the first non-preferred photo over one of the other ones that have been uploaded? You could set one of them to 'Yes' for highlight temporarily, but there are two things that I haven't tested yet...
1) Does re-ordering the media files in the 'Media' tab influence which 'blank-highlight' photo is chosen?
2) Does setting a later uploaded photo to 'Yes-highlight' remove or overide a previously chosen highlight photo?
Bob:
Your answers:
1: yes
2: not necessarily. Use media re-ordering.
Thanks Gerry,
For answer #2, I would rather go back and remove the highlight=yes on the previously chosen photo rather than use media re-ordering to control the choice from multiple photos with highlight=yes selected.
On the other hand, it might be possible to have that situation occur. If you have two individuals, each with their own highlight photo, and for some reason you want to have person 1's highlight photo also appear in person 2's media list, you might have to use media re-ordering to control person 2's highlight photo.
<<The "No", "Yes", "Never" would affect the Random Media block. >>
Isn't that just introducing another (unnecessary) complication? As far as I know the random media block doesn't use the _PRIM tag for anything at all at present. "Never" show something in the random media block is covered by its own config settings and privacy rules, surely?
I'd be really worried at having to explain to users (and people coming here for help) when you would choose to set media highlight as "no" and when as "Never", and what the difference is.
Why can't we keep it to a simple Yes or No?
If we must have "Never", can you give a succinct layman's explanation that can go into help screens etc - when someone as code-illiterate as me can understand.
KIWI - Yes and No are fine with me. I do believe Gerry was on the right track with a NEVER idea, in that there are media items that should probably never be featured, but the NO will suffice for simplicity sake.
Meliza - No change to existing media. New ones should not assume something by leaving blank, but should be configured to either show or not show. Yes is the same as 'none' currently, so what's the difference. And I can't imagine ever using the large media item as a thumbnail as it slows the server to a crawl and adds no functionality.
-Stephen
Do I use a different kind of English from yours? Surely, the differences between Canadian English and that used in New Zealand or even the UK aren't that great. Sure, we use "...ze" instead of "...se", but that's minor.
Privacy has nothing to do with how images are selected as candidates for viewing through the Random Media block. When this block has found an image that might possibly be viewable, Privacy is checked as the final authority.
Working backwards:
The "Never" option ensures that the image in question will under no circumstances ever be visible in the Random Media block. You might wish to use this option for scans of Census records or perhaps for pictures of gravestones.
Images identified with the "Never" option will never be selected as the main image on the Personal Details page or the Family Details page. However, images identified with the "Never" option can still appear on the Media tab of the Personal details page. They also appear in the Media list and on the Manage Media page but are subject to applicable Privacy rules.
The "No" option indicates that this image is not a preferred image for showing as the main image on the Personal Details page or the Family Details page. However, in the absence of images carrying the "Yes" option, the first image with the "No" option will still be used as the main image. You can use the Re-order Media feature to control the order of the images so that the proper image will be chosen.
Images with the "No" option are candidates for viewing through the Random Media block. The final authority for whether or not a given image is viewable is Privacy. Images with the "No" option will still appear in the Media list and on the Manage Media page, again obeying applicable Privacy rules.
The "Yes" option indicates that this image is a preferred image for showing as the main image on the Personal Details page or the Family Details page. When several images have the "Yes" option, the first such image will be selected. You can use the Re-order Media feature to control the order of the images so that the proper image will be chosen.
Images with the "Yes" option are candidates for viewing through the Random Media block. The final authority for whether or not a given image is viewable is Privacy. Images with the "Yes" option will appear in the Media list and on the Manage Media page, again obeying applicable Privacy rules.
------------
A missing or blank Highlight option currently is interpreted as "No" (we don't have "Never"). In the new scheme of things, we could assign "Never" to this condition.
Gerry
Here's where we differ. A blank, as the current default, should really be interpreted as still blank or yes, not NEVER. Currently, a blank on the PRIM (or none existing) displays as a YES in the absence of an existing PRIM. If a PRIM is added, it takes precedence over the blank/none media object, and should remain as so. This 'assumption' must remain so that those with many media objects that were not reviewed prior to approval to the DB and designated with a PRIM Y or N remain displaying as they currently do, not never.
I do agree with the concept of NEVER as appropriate for certain types of media objects and certain media itself, or where privacy is a consideration and designating it as so improves the speed of display as privacy is unnecessary to calculate as a result of this designation.
-Stephen
Sorry, but I still think the random media block is totally irrelevant and confuses the issue. We are talking about the "Highlight" function - the tag _PRIM. Are you saying that the random media block currently takes account of that setting (I'm not aware that it does) or that you WANT it to take account of it? I'm assuming the latter.
I wasn't advocating any additional functionality over what we have now. I don't think its necessary.
The random media has sufficient configuration options already to decide what is or is not displayed there, without complicating things by involving the (in my view) completely separate issue of whiter an image is selected to be the "highlighted" image on the INDI tabs and charts.
I do also disagree with Stephen' over the value of "NEVER" as well. If an image should "NEVER" be displayed for the reasons you describe (Stephen), why bother uploading it in the first place?
Kiwi
Sorry, I never said NEVER 'displayed'. NEVER = PRIM Y (never highlighted - I call 'featured'). I would never advocate the absurb position of uploading an image that would never be used, despite the lack of HD space, etc.
-Stephen
<<The random media has sufficient configuration options already to decide what is or is not displayed there..>>
Could you be so kind and list all admins options to prevent images to be shown in the random media block?
>>If an image should "NEVER" be displayed for the reasons you describe (Stephen), why bother uploading it in the first place? <<
Such images might still be of interest or relevant to the details of the person to whom they are linked.
You're right about the Random Media block currently not paying attention to the Highlight option of the media item.
The problem with the configuration options of the Random Media block is that they're an all-or-nothing setting that depends on the types being accurately identified for all images. You can exclude all gravestones, but not *some*.
The "Never" option just gives better control, since it's at the image level. Also, it's not always easy to classify the type of image. Besides that, uploading users don't normally know what the configuration of the Random media block is.
Kiwi, you seem to be concerned about adding needless complexity to the logic of PGV. The proposed hanges are relatively simple. There's more work in getting the descriptions right in the language files than there is in actually amending the code.
There's still the question, clearly presented by Stephen, as to what the meaning of the blank or missing Highlight option should be. "blank" == "never" was simply a suggestion. Having this condition meaning "maybe" is equally easy. There would then be another check for displayability, inserted between the check for "yes" and the check for "no":
- Look for "yes"
- Look for "maybe" (blank or missing Highlight option)
- Look for "no" (actually it's "not 'never'")
Stephen - thanks for the clarification. I thought that might be the case.
Gerry - yes, I think we are getting closer to being on the same wavelength. Thanks for your patience. Its not a language thing, we just think these things through in different ways <G>
My concern is not so much with the complexity of PGVs logic, as with the thought-processes a user might have when adding a media item. In my view the possible display or not of an image on the random media block will not be even the remotest consideration for 99.9% of users uploading an image. Hence my preference for a simple solution at that stage.
I'm quite happy with your definition of yes/no/blank.
As for the random media block, I prefer to see that as a separate issue, and one perhaps best left in the admin domain, rather than individual users. Perhaps a separate setting for each media item - "allow to display on Random Media Block, with settings of "yes (default) or No. Perhaps a new _RAND tag?
Kiwi:
NOW you're adding needless complexity. Adding a new custom tag is a LOT harder than just adding an additional value to a current custom tag that's not even in the GEDCOM spec.
When mucking about with Media handling, we have to consider ALL uses that the various media items will be put to. You can't mess with the Random Media block in isolation.
I don't see where the "Never" choice confuses anybody looking at the input form. It seems to me that the meaning of "Never" hasn't changed in quite a few centuries. People will be more confused by a choice "Maybe", which is really what should be shown when the actual option is blank or missing.
The choices: "Yes", "Maybe", "No", "Never" in that order. Notice the absence of blank.
We could even go so far as to provide a suitably worded hint beside the Choice pick list.
Whatever...
Its academic to me anyway as I don't use the random media block any longer; and my site will retain a simple Yes/No selector for add media highlight regardless of what is changed in the core code. Just wanted to help ordinary users out, but its clear I don't know what I'm talking about.
Nobody but us three have said much here anyway, so I guess the whole discussion was pointless. Sorry I ever raised the issue - very, very, sorry.
Easier if you click on the blocks configuration icon (to the left of the block's title).