Forums/Known issues
New design : beware of bugs
Damien Roué
posted this on September 19, 2011 14:20
Hello everyone.
You may have noticed some changes on Fotopedia.com today as we made an important update. The paint is still fresh, and you might notice some hiccups during the following days.
If you see something broken or not properly displayed, please report us an issue using this form.
I'll keep you posted on further changes.
Update: Here is an explanation for the new reputation system (the numbers you see right next to your profile name) : Reputation System.
Known and fixed issues on the beta can be found here.
Comments
Wow!!! Important update it's an euphemism... ;-)
I really like it.
This looks pretty good but not for showing photos in portrait format since those are badly cut within the new presentation :-((
Hello, you just have to double click on the pictures in portrait to have it in full. The main problem is with the first picture of each article, the photo doesn't center and stays small in the upper left corner.
@Volker Gilbert: you can double click on a photo to change from fill to fit. We are working on improving this view.
There seems to be no home button on some pages, also I was just looking at a photo, and clicking on various icons, after which even the back button on my browser had no effect - stuck on the same page. Only way to navigate away was via the address bar.
Seems to be no link to the article on Wikipedia.
I agree with Jean-Michel, if the photo is aligned to the top left of the screen, it is not so good for viewing on high resolution screens.
Using Firefox 6.0.2 on Windows 7.
Hello Dan, I using Safari.
The only way for home is to click on the compass on the right and select "home".
Maybe it's possible to have this link on the fotopedia on the upper left.
On 30 inch screen it's now a fantastic slide show except when the pictures are too small or portrait format.
Hello all. Thanks for your feedbacks.
@Jean-Michel: the bug you report is known, and we are working to solve this ASAP.
@Dan Marsh: we are still fine tuning some stuff, and you should consider this version as a Beta. The Wikipedia article can be found by pressing "i" on your keyboard, or clicking on the "info" button on the left side. You can hide or view the controls by clicking one time on the screen.
Edit : ok, you mean the link to the Wiki article. We will fix this ASAP.
Thanks all for your good feedbacks.
@Jean-Michel BAUD and Damien Roué : thanks, this double-click definitely solves the problem :-)
Anyway at least i can see now why it is important to provide large and good looking images ;-)
Now the rule for the size of pics ( 533x800 ) seems obsolete and I think it's important to upgrade to 1000 x 1500 or 1080 x 1620.
Hi everybody!
I'd like to know what browser/OS you're using with that double-click function. I'm using Firefox 6.0.2 on Windows 7 and double-click doesn't work for me at all! :o(
In passing I'd like to mention that it's not only the portrait photos that are truncated, but also, in some cases, the landscape ones too. I have a (22") 1600 x 1200 resolution screen, so anything larger is partly cut off.
Hello Brigitte! Je te réponds en français, c'est plus facile. Je n'ai pas de problème sur Mac avec le double click, ni sur safari, ni sur chrome ni sur firefox.
Ce que je fais en premier pour un bon confort de navigation, c'est de caler ma fenêtre sur une image avec des proportions de 1,5 et une taille suffisante.
Ce qui serait bien c'est de pouvoir choisir le mode d'affichage, plein écran ou image complète. La première option semble délicate pour juger de la qualité des images et est rédhibitoire pour les formats portrait.
Ce que je ne comprends pas c'est où va le commentaire que l'on peut mettre quand on vote.
Brigitte - for me it works, with the same OS and browser, but not always.
Hi Dan!
Thanks for the info... but it still doesn't work for me and I've tried several times, on different photos and pages. Guess I'll just wait until the FP team figures out a solution for this.
I have to try it with an Ipad !!!
One thing I liked about the old version, is that the visual design did a good job of presenting photos of different sizes, and aspects, in a consistent way.
In the new version, sometimes the play/next buttons are overlayed on to the photo, which can distract, and interfere with the photo's appearance.
There is no margin around larger photos, which "touch" other elements on the page. This also causes some visual interference. I think blank space is as important as the visual elements being presented, not just on a website, but in books, art galleries, posters, and all things visual.
I totally agree with you Dan and I think that it's important to have a consistent way to present photos. But I can also understand that owners of 30-inch screens want to see larger photos than me and my 22-inches. One of the solutions might be to have a user setting where a maximum display size can be defined.
Hello Dan and Brigitte. The 30-inch isn't really the good way to have pleasure. I reduce the window of the browser to have honest quality and to keep black strips on left and right for navigation buttons.....
It's not really a photographer interface..... It's build for end user on an Ipad for example. I just tried it and it's really perfect....... Even the bug we have with first picture of an article isn't a problem. I don't know if it will be possible to remove the browser tool bar it's my only wish...... on Ipad! On my computer it's different.......
Maybe the solution is the possibility for photographers too choose a size on the center of the browser window with black frame.... to keep the buttons out of the picture.....
I don't have an iPad, but I can imagine it all works and fits better on one.
Is it possible to change the display of "more details about this photo" for a pop up or something similar, not a new page?
Dan, I am using a MacPro with a Track Pad instead of a mouse. When in Safari or Chrome, not in Firefox, it's possible with 2 fingers too reduce the size of the pictures and have a beautiful black frame for the cows..... It works with all pictures except very big one 4400 x 3000 I uploaded with fotopedia client..... you can see the result...
OK, thanks!
Also works with my mouse pad.
The new design is awesome! It has a few problems but it is much better than before. My main problem was that it took me awhile to understand how to use it, and I can imagine that it may be confusing to a first time user - so a tutorial might be in order. The 'steering wheel' icon is a little obscure...
The new voting system is excellent, but I hope everyone realizes that they need to select a special option in order to see candidate images!
I sort of miss the article suggestions, but the new search function more than makes up for that.
I am very happy that the Wikipedia text seems to be expanded on some articles.
My main suggestion would be to have the image description be visible on the main page through a toggle, so one does not have to flip back and forth from the 'more information' page.
So far as bugs go, I experienced some anomolies from using the Back Browser Button to navigate back from the 'More Information' page. I also found an ifinite loop of the same two images repeating in the 'Green' article, but it went away when I reloaded the page.
All in all, I am very impressed! Keep up the great work!
A good work, with some bug.
I agree with the portrait issue, the lack of home link, the suggestion to toggle the image description in the main page.
Other things I'd like: to see the title of the picture in the main page (when it is available), to show the number of photos for each topic, to divide top photos from candidates, as it was before: now all photos are together, randomly shown, there is no more distinction between tops an candidates.
However the main problem seems to be the dimensions of the pictures, as they vary from photo to photo and frequently exceed the screen bounderies and are nearly constantly overlapped by other elements (navigation bar, wikipedia etc). The double-click doesn't solve the problem (or it does only very few times: I think it depends from the original size of the image).
Using Chrome on Windows Vista, 20' monitor, 1680x1050
Thank you
@Jean-Michel : The minimal size of the picture will change soon.
You can choose from fill (full width) to fit (complete image) when double clicking on a picture. This is persistent within an article. Do you want to be able to set it for your whole experience on Fotopedia?
Regarding the comment that you can enter when voting, its currently not displayed on the site, but it will be soon.
As you said, this interface is made to work on all devices: computers, tablets and mobile phones.
@Dan: You can hide controls on the screen to only display the image by clicking once on the center of the image. The previous/play/next buttons and the name of the photographer will always stay visible.
@Brigitte: We will fine tuned this, so please try again in a few hours.
@Eric: This is not a steering wheel but a compass to lead you to where you want to go. This is the equivalent of a sitemap.
All your remarks are great for us, and as I said, the paint is still fresh and we will add more options sooner.
@Damien the double-click to pass from fill to fit does not work with me... neither from firefox or from safari (using MacBookPro 2011 OSX Lion)
I just opened a topic in the Feature Requests section of the forum about the "more info about this photo" pop-up idea that Jean-Michel and Eric talked about.
Please follow this topic if you want to discuss this : "More details about this photo" popup instead of new page.
the new Fotopedia looks very pretty, but as Gilbert Volker already said, the photos don't fit well in full width, too bad.
It is good that we can set some preferences for how we see the photos.
But, my concern is more about how the many visitors see our photos, especially those who are unaware of how all these preferences work.
For example, if larger photos are filling the screen, by default, and the top/bottom of the photo is cropped, then it can affect the composition of the photo, and potentially make a good photo appear not so good.
The magazine looks very good, only problem I have is that I can't find any index to all magazines.
A list of all the Fotopedia Magazines can be found on the @fotopediamag Twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/#!/fotopediamag
@Dan: We are working to improve this feature for end users, and also try to detect portrait oriented photos and not display them in full.
About the magazine, an index page is under construction. In the meantime, you can see a list of all stories on Twitter or on Facebook.
Hey, even when I've more than 100 images uploaded, lot of them as "top" now the page doesn't allows me to vote anymore, I'm missing anything?
Thanks,
@Sandro check out the new reputation system on this topic: http://help.fotopedia.com/entries/20442447-reputation-system , maybe it'll be helpfull...
@Thomas, I've read it, but I'm out and need to be start over? Doesn't sounds ridiculous?
@Sandro : Hello Sandro. Any reputation score is based on user activity on Fotopedia since 15th June 2011. You can see your activity and reputation you gain or loose on the reputation tab of your profile page since this monday.
I saw that you lost some points because some of your photos in the street art article have been removed (you lost -5 for each photo removed). My advice is for you to submit 5 new good photos and you will easily gain a reputation of 30 that allows you to be able to vote.
Please read our reputation rules with attention and you will get this.
Also, if you want to discuss about the reputation system, please create another topic on the reputation forum, this one is only for beta technical bugs.
It's ok, @Thomas, nothing to add to this. Thanks.
I like the new design, although I wonder if all the 'fancyness' is needed. The thing I liked about the old design is that is was simple and fit-for purpose: focusing on the photos.
There are a few things I noticed:
Cheers,
Marinka
Absolutelly agree with @Marinka, the quality of the displayed images is not as good as before, for a person who doesn't know the original images quality, the overall experience is very degraded and the images looks poor in general. I'm looking at really good images (mines and other I already looked at) without any kind of noise nor artifacts that now looks just bad... As said, I tried also with different monitor resolutions and browser windows sizes. Were the images resampled or something?
@Marinka: We made this design to focus more on photos, and give you a better experience.
You are not able to vote down on a photo because of the new reputation system. You need to have at least 1000 points to vote down on photos. We made this choice because we thing before giving a negative signal to a photo you should prove to the community that you have a sharp eye by adding stunning photographs, and voting up quality and relevant photos.
Regarding the quality of images, some photos are not of a good quality enough because they have been uploaded with a poor resolution. By default, you are in the fill view (full width) and some images have artefacts because they are expanded. However, you can choose the fit view by double clicking on your screen to see photos in their original size. We are working on this to make this more easy to switch and choose the best view. Moreover, to keep a good experience on the site, we will update the quality chart with a higher minimum size for photos. The new photo view modes help you see the real quality of a photo, and it's now easier to vote on high quality photos, before bad photographs can't hide in plain view.
About the organization of photos, we will improve this soon, don't worry.
Finally, your suggestion to add a way to show you if you've already voted for a photo is a good idea and I will suggest it to our dev team.
@Sandro: Images are not resampled, but on the fill view they are up-sized (not sure of the term). Our advise is now to upload photos with higher resolution (at least 1600x1080 or 1080x1600) so that they show up beautifully on the site.
Hello, I like this forum and the new design......
It's easier to see the image quality than before, nothing to do! Before it was a lot of clicks to see the picture in full screen on my 30-inch.
Now I just double click (tap) images to have a full view of proportions. If the image quality uploaded is good the result is good. Example: http://images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-5867449126-hd.jpg from Flickr or http://images.cdn.fotopedia.com/7dctrd1a20m9m-yIp79odeLRc-hd.jpg with fotopedia client.
The size of the pictures is +- 1620 x 1080 I open the images in a new window it's fast, only two clicks, one to open, and one to close and return to the screen....
When the window of the browser is big, full screen, I have only this size....
When the window of the browser is smaller I have 2 different sizes, one when I double click, smaller than the original.
http://host2.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-5867449126-ifill_1024x...
http://images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-5867449126-hd.jpg
And when I use a small window I have 2 different files:
http://host2.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-5867449126-max_1024.jpg
http://host2.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-5867449126-ifill_1024x...
I like "More details about this picture" button because when the license permit it I like to use the "download" button to see the original file. http://images.cdn.fotopedia.com/7dctrd1a20m9m-yIp79odeLRc-original.jpg
Marinka ask a way to know if we have already voted for a photo. Maybe it's possible to change the color of the vote button in red when we did it and keep it black when not.....
The random presentation is not really pleasant.
The dev team has to work but it's already better than yesterday ;-) portrait pictures are in full now, the first image has the good size.... and we have home link ... Thanks.
Thanks Jean-Michel for your feedback.
For your info, we fixed the display of portrait oriented photos, and this is prettier and more realistic now.
Please keep up posting your feedback and tell us if you think something is a showstepper to your experience on the site.
@Damien: double clicking to show the actual size photos doesn't work on Firefox 6 on a Mac.
Sorry... one more thing. Another thing I miss from the old Fotopedia is the similar projects view. I liked that because it made me aware of projects I wouldn't have found otherwise. Any chance to bring this back, perhaps under the action button?
All,
Let's have a chat about order of pictures in the new article page here...
http://help.fotopedia.com/entries/20463367-pictures-order-in-new-ar...
@Marinka: it works for me on Firefox 6.0.2 on Mac, can you try again, maybe you were caught inside a temporary bug.
We didn't put the similar view yet, but if a photo is in multiple articles, you can see their name on the top bar. In the future, we will add more functions to the photo view.
Double click to enlarge a picture is working now on Firefox 6.0.2 on my Mac.
Double click works now, but not smoothly. First time it goes well, after that it takes several double-clicks (same speed, same spot) for the photo to enlarge or reduce.
(Firefox 6.0.2. on Mac)
One possible bug:
When I am viewing photos as a slideshow, with the wiki text panel open on the right, some photos do not display - blank space only. They only show if I close the wiki text panel.
Yes Dan: I dried it on Safari and Chrome on Mac, No problem on Peru article......... The only problem is with Firefox, the window stays black sometime.....
I am still seeing a problem with this, photo is displayed in fill mode (zoomed in), I double click on the photo, and it changes to fit mode, but the complete image is still not visible. Seems the top menu bar is sitting on top of the photo, so that it is cropped off.
Hello,
1) On standard laptop, the screen resolution is 1366x768 even on 15" screen.
In these conditions, it's not possible to see the entire interface within firefox and for exemple I can't access to "vote" button in the pop-up windows.
2) Is-it possible to continue to see in real time the new pictures added by members (like in the first page before) ?
Eric
The menu on the top is still cropping the images (on MBP reso 1200*800).
I also find disturbing the arrows and the name of the photographer which overlaps the picture.
Where is the home page? A click on the home link, or go to fotopedia.com brings an ugly page with add for Flipboard or other apps. Without a proper home page, new visitors will go away immediatly.
I totally agree with Dominique Huet !
Another remark : with so many articles, it's totally impossible to vote for some photos, in some articles (we can't know that articles exists) even if the photos are beautiful. Couls you image a random article acces in the home page ?
The current is the intended final home page design? There is no more visibility of the projects, featured curators and photographers, etc. for a new visitor is really hard to find any sense to the published items in there. What's the final idea?
Well, I sadly agree with Dominique Huet. The new design doesn't allow easy access to articles any more and basically makes adding new pictures very awkward. My only solution right now is to log into my user account and to view my profile in order to find all the old (and pratical !!) links on the bottom of the page :-(( The new home page hides the fonctionnalities of Topedia instead of showing them...
100% with @Dominique Huet & @Volker Gilbert, the new visitors will just bounce from the home page without any clue of what is Fotopedia about and the amazing pictures, projects and profiles hidden by the front page.
@Jean-Michel : can you still reproduce your bug with black screens? The better is to send us a support request with as much info as possible http://www.fotopedia.com/support_request/new
@Dan @Thomas: you're right, the top bar is over the photo, this is a bug and we will solve it (added to know issues).
@Eric: 1/ Do you close the yellow top bar? After that, if you refresh the page, you should be able to view the vote button.
2/ You can see photos that receive a photo on the photostrip of the community page: http://www.fotopedia.com/community We will discuss soon about way to discover photos and vote for them.
@Thomas: we can think of ways to improve that, please create a different topic in the forum "Feature requests" if you want to discuss this.
@Dominique @Eric @Sandro @Volker: the homepage is not finished and be sure that we will create a proper way for you to always see fresh content and also topics that you were not aware of. This is under construction (and that's why your feedback is really important).
@Volker: all those links that you know are under the compass icon.
@Damien,
The double- click to pass from fill to fit does not work with me to.
I am using Internet Explorer 9 on Windows7
Thanks @Damien and good to know, but we'll be able to provide you guys a better feedback if we're aware of what's planned about the home page, the original one was a good one IMO.
Double-clicking to fill/original size worked (a little bit) yesterday. Today it doesn't work anymore.
FireFox 6.0.2 on a Mac
@Damien : that's right, but it isn't obvious ;-)
I really feel the need for a border around the image. I feel uncomfortable that I'm always unsure that the picture is not cropped. I welcome the high resolution photos.
From an ergonomic point of view, having to click the picture to bring up a voting button is awkward. How about putting the voting button next to the navigation buttons?
I agree with the comments about the home page, its awful - I'm sure the bounce rate will go up. The previous home page with featured photos was inspirational. The new one is NOT..
Having just started a voting session with just over 1000 points I find that having voted a few photos down, I can no longer vote any more photos down, because my score has dropped. Since I'm voting (i.e. working) I have to change my workflow to only vote up photos and remember to come back and do the voting process all over again when I'm allowed to vote down. The end effect of this was I stopped voting. I recognize that this is only an issue around the 1000 point mark, but its ugly from an ergonomic/workflow point of view.
I also welcome the ability to add comments, but feel that comments (i.e. reasons) for voting a photo down should be mandatory. The system is still open to abuse the way it is now (i.e. tactical voting) It would be possible to speed up the commenting process by using radio buttons for things like framing, noise etc, whilst still allowing detailed comments to be entered.
Jeff
@jeff : I totally agree. I'm around 1000 and I decided to stop to vote down even it's necessary regarding the photo quality !
I'm now calculating what to do to avoid my score dropping !
searching for a photo has become very very slow and it is almost impossible to vote for one once you've found it, I have great difficulty viewing photos also because they don't fit the monitor, The menu on the top crops the images
the home page doesnt' show photos anymore
Not sure if this has to do with the new design, but I don't get notified anymore if a photo of mine is removed. I noticed it through the reputation tab, but the last time I checked (yes, I keep score of how my photos are doing in a spreadsheet ;-)) it still scored 3. Is the recent activity photo bar on the profile page still updated? Or is voting low since the new design?
I can't seem to remove a photo (one of my own) from articles
Sorry to be negative, but I too think the new homepage is a total failure. It's not intuitive, looks like advertising and first-time users will not be tempted to explore at all.
The voting system seems better and fairer, with no negative votes allowed for newbies.
The reputation system is an excellent idea, but sadly, initial users who have submitted lots of pics and worked hard to get Fotopedia going are left in the cold. I submitted more than 800 photos, voted regularly, but still have almost no reputation points because I've been rather inactive the last few months. Demotivating to say the least.
I've fiddled quite a bit with the new controls, but still haven't figured out how to view new photos, the fast forward buttons don't seem to work and rescaling photos seems not possible. All this may be possible, but without some explanations or a tutorial, nobody will get the full benefit of the makeover.
I also miss the daily article featured on the home page. Now all you get is a search button (and four buttons for advertising). Do you really think Fotopedia should be search-oriented only? I think it should focus a lot more on leisurely (and not purposely) browsing of photos and articles as if it were a good photobook.
"The reputation system is an excellent idea, but sadly, initial users who have submitted lots of pics and worked hard to get Fotopedia going are left in the cold. I submitted more than 800 photos, voted regularly, but still have almost no reputation points because I've been rather inactive the last few months. Demotivating to say the least. "
Could not agree more.
I've been working with the new interface for a couple of days, now. I have these further comments to offer.
Ergonomics:
Voting requires too many mouse clicks
1 to open the panel, 2 Drags to vote, 1 to place the vote & 1 to close. Total 5.
Suggest direct buttons for vote up or down, the screen real estate on the top of the window is underutilized
Also suggest shortcut Keys for voting, I note that its possible to navigate using the keyboard left /right arrow keys, why not use the . keyboard up down keys to vote.
Navigation
I can't seem to find a way to show only photos which are new/have a score less that 5.
I feel the need for a direct link to the community strip - when I've finished voting an article I need to go there each time.
Don't want to sound too negative - the new interface is visually much better than the old one, its just that more thought needs to be given to how it will be used. Its good for browsing , but Voters need a better interface to allow rapid navigation of an article & a fast means to vote.
Oh, and the new interface is TOTALLY broken in the Opera browser
Hi all,
The option to remove a photo from an article is not currently available due to a bug. We try to solve this ASAP.
@Claudia : you can vote 50 times a day with your current reputation. The voting system has been improved, see how it works on our FAQ: http://help.fotopedia.com/entries/171606-voting
@Marinka : if you don't receive emails, check on your profile your notification settings.
@Philip : homepage is in beta, and we agree with you that today the community is not featured on it, but it will change, please trust me. Sorting tools will also appear in article page, see this discussion (add your ideas). Regarding buttons, if you have a problem please submit us an issue here.
@Jeff : thanks for your feedbacks. We will surely add sorting tools on the page, and I saw you share your insights with us on our discussion. About Opera, I asked our team to investigate this.
I just added some photos, but when I had a look at them afterwards I saw that they were massacred during cropping. I use a 12'' netbook and Google chrome, and the photos were completely clipped top and bottom.
I'd never vote for them seeing them like this - and so for everyone else. Is this an issue on all computers/OS or just mine?
Hello Philip, please report me an issue with specific links and problem so that I can asset this. As you know, you can hide controls by clicking on the center of the image, or using the keyboard shortcut "c". You will then see the bottom of your photo. The menu bar is over the photo (nothing is cropped, just hidden), and this is a bug that needs to be solved.
@Damien: I have not changed anything in my notification email settings and they are indeed still the same as they always were. Still I didn't receive a notification that two of my photos were removed on September 23.
I'm sorry to say, but I'm starting to loose interest in visiting this site. The voting is more complicated and takes too many clicks. Even though the majority of my photos made it to the top of articles I am not allowed to vote down a bad photo, but then again I can't really determine anymore if a photo is just bad quality or if the scaling did something weird to it. I find myself from coming here at least twice a day to a few times per week. Pity...
@Damien: I understand what a beta is, my whole life was around software development, but honestly, this stage of Fotopedia do not qualifies as beta, everything is being tried "live" so I imagine that tons of new visitors are just bouncing without browsing anything, projects, etc. ever single engaging feature are just hidden, or perhaps deprecated, I don't know.
Nobody could guess that the home page will be changed for a better one nor any improper image visualization can be realized by a new visitor as something in "beta", even for us (current Fotopedians) is impossible to guess if a image is just a bad one, a bug, an improper crop or poor coding.
At least some kind of expected functionality and improvements should be released to all of us in order to know what's a bug and what's a feature.
So long as the final result is an improvement, then all is good.
All photos seem to be 'stretched' to fit the whole screen (like the wallpaper options in Windows). Even when clicking the center of the screen, the complete photo is still not visible. I think the complete photo should always be visible (and clicking in the center of the screen would serve to make to shown area larger).
As all photos seem to suffer from this, only the photos with lots of space around the edges show up well. I think photos that don't fit should be shown with black edges at the left/right or top/bottom.
I also think Sandro has a point. Calling this a beta is a euphemism. It's no more then trying out online what should have been tested before releasing it.
I hope we can see a decent and functioning beta version soon, because as it stands now, most first-time visitors won't come back and existing members seem to lose interest and/or get frustrated.
@Sandro, Sandro I'm sure with all your experience you have some helpful insights for the Fotopedia team ?
@Philip, Philip, I'm guessing that the Fotopedia team are struggling with limited resources at the moment, whilst I share your frustrations, we need to give them time to get it right.
@Damien, Perhaps a list of Bugs/Features & with fix priorities & likely timescales sent by email would help. Also a list of supported browsers (e.g.. withdraw support for Opera for the moment) would ease the pressure a little. It must be very difficult to get this complex interface working for all common Browsers at differing screen resolutions.
As to new visitors, I suggest you put a temp homepage up with a message to the effect that a major software revision has taken place, and therefore there may be some glitches - add a list of supported browsers here too, and perhaps a list of the "Features" that people can currently expect when using Fotopedia. A synopsis of the UI controls & new reputation system will be good here too, so people don't have to dig around for it. If you kept this page up to date with "Features" (!) then all will know what the current situation is.
Jeff
@Jeff: Insights? It sounds ironic to me, or I'm wrong? Is not my role to provide insights, I'm just a collaborator (as a photographer and also administering some of the Fotopedia projects pages in Facebook) and without an idea of what's the team is working on, is impossible to help, nor to test anything. Or do you have, Jeff, absolutely clear what's the scope of each intended feature, what's pending, what's is being worked on (as the home page) and what's a deprecated feature? I'll be glad to help, of course, but I can't guess how nor to whom.
I have to assume the Fotopedia didn't requested any help for a private testing because they've clear what they're doing and where the site is going to. They decided to go with a live "testing" like this one like and to see how it goes, IMO affecting the overall perception of Fotopedia, and without a private beta testing nor a serious community involvement.
@Sandro, No, no irony or offence intended - I just meant you have lots of experience & could maybe offer some guidance on software release procedures - that's all. I have no more information than you have.
@Jeff, I apologize for my comment, I've obviously misunderstood your's, sorry.
Is almost impossible to suggest anything not being involved from the beginning and without knowing the whole site's technical architecture nor the base code. Of course I'll be glad and proud of being helpful and to dedicate some spare time to the project, but I think is not the right time to do it, and is the team who has to decide what kind of help (and in which way) they need, if any.
I am unable to llok at my account and I get the message that I have found a bug. I also get the same message when trying to use your report form for bugs as indicated above
Hi everyone,
Following your last request, I created an information board you can find here about bug tracking and developments in the pipeline. You won't be able to comment it (you can discuss here, or, better, submit a request for a bug you saw and that is not listed there) and I invite you to subscribe to it by email so that you are informed of any update we made on the beta.
@Damien
When I click your link I get a page stating that I have found a bug!!
@Kevin: did you receive my email?
@Philip : the bug regarding the quality of photos has been fixed. It was linked to a bad request in our side asking for the image in a wrong resolution. Now it should works fine.
How about the link to the article on wikipedia?
At the moment, I am copying and pasting the title across to wikipedia, so that I can see the full text there. But, it is tedious to do it this way.
I think this photo demonstrates the poor effect the "fill screen" feature is having on photos.
http://www.fotopedia.com/wiki/Multirole_combat_aircraft#!/items/fli...
If you look at it, at normal full-size, it is sharp with fine details.
Double click on it, and the full horror of interpolation is revealed. See the blocky look on the jet's edges.
I think the default view of photos should be 'fit' and not 'show full width'. It is clear that most photos aren't cropped to your ideal 1920x1080 size, thus clipping serious edges top and bottom from each photos.
I fail to see how one can easily toggle between views. If it is possible at all, I think it it should be possible to save this setting in one's profile as well. The full width view is just so unsatisfying and unflattering to most photos.
"I think the default view of photos should be 'fit' and not 'show full width'."
Me too. There are some good photos which have been added at lower resolutions and these don't look good enlarged.
I must say that, now I have got used to the interface & can delete photos, the new interface is a vast improvement over the old one & I'm enjoying the Fotopedia experience more.
Jeff
I thought that I must be doing something wrong as I am fairly new to this site but the comments above perhaps suggest not. The new design is cropping my pictures so that the composition (and often the quality) looks poor and not as I intended. With horizontal format I think it is filling the width and therefore cropping top and bottom. I would be surprised if many people have the exact 1920 x 1080 size as most pictures require cropping before uploading to show the composition their best. Are there any suggestions about what I might be doing wrong or should I delete the pictures seriously effected? Apologies in advance if I am doing something wrong.
@Dan : I forgot to mention links to Wikipedia in the list, sorry.
Talking about fill-view, that's right that if you are on a really big screen the best is to use the fit-view in order to avoid images to be altered by enlargement. However, the fill view doesn't enlarge low resolution images.
@Philip: you're right, we will add a better way to toggle between views. Currently, the only way to switch between fill and fit is to double click on the middle of the image. This setting is persistent only for the article you are seeing. We are not planning to add this setting to the profile for the moment.
@Jeff: photos with low resolutions are not enlarged in the fill view, as you may see for some photos in the Paris article for instance.
@Ann: did you try again to double click on a photo to change from fill to fit view? I think this is really the reason why you can't see photos in full in your browser (see my screenshots attached to the response I just sent to you).
Thanks all for your feedbacks.
On a few occasions, yesterday, I saw some small photos, which would have been about 800 x 600 pixels in size, being expanded up to at least double the size. This made them look very soft.
I will post a link if I see this again.
Also, I notice the quality guide lines suggest that 1920 x 1080 is the optimal size. But this aspect doesn't make sense to me.
35mm i.e. D-SLRs are a 1.5 aspect, which would be 1620 x 1080.
1920 x 1080 is a 1.77 aspect, i.e. HD video, wide-screen 16:9.
This is one photo (one of mine) that by default seems to be enlarged: http://www.fotopedia.com/wiki/Mist#!/items/escaladieu-n_0jwR-UUJA
However by double clicking it it goes to the correct resolution. Should I take it out ? I added it ages ago before I realized what the correct resolution should be. At the moment I'm putting photos in with size (Long Edge) 1680 - is this correct ?
Jeff
@Damien Just checked that URL I put in above and it does not bring up the correct Photo in the Mist article, don't know why. Anyway browse through the Mist article & some of my photos there seem to be enlarged by default - they don't look good like that , but OK when double clicked.
I see that Opera now works properly with the new interface - well done !
Jeff
I'd suggest setting your software to export size based on short edge = 1080.
If your using a D-SLR, that would result in a photo which is 1620 x 1080.
1080 is the height in pixels, of a typical full HD display/TV.
HDTV resolutions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV#High-definition_display_resolutions
You can always upload them at the original large-size, as well. I think TVs are likely to become even higher in resolution in the future.
@Dan : the optimal size is 1920x1080. Of course, you can upload larger photos, and also photos of 1920x1280, or photos of 1920x1400 (or 1400x1920), etc... With the new design, we are thinking of updating the minimal size accepted to keep the quality high. Our advice is to upload at the original large-size.
@Jeff: this is a bug and we are working on it. You should only have the choice between fill and fit, and on your example you have a third intermediary choice that is not satisfying. Don't remove it, we can solve the problem.
Regarding the size of your photos, we prefer at least 1920 in one edge, and not less of 1080 in the other edge.
If the link does not bring up to the correct photo, check the filter (featured / all community photos) that you have on the page.
@Damien - Thanks for telling me about the double-click feature to get photos displayed in their original size without cropping. It was a very well kept secret that others probably don't know about either.
What about displaying the photos in their original size first and enlarge them by double-clicking - wouldn't that avoid all the confusion?
Also, after adding a photo to an article, the screen returns to the last viewed photo. I think it would be better to take us to our newly added photo (to check if it displays well). Now this is a very convoluted process - clicking 'only show featured photos' followed by ' show all community photo'. Only then can you see your added photo. Am I missing something? This can't really be intended, can it?
Good afternoon all,
We implemented a new fit view, you can play with it, for instance on the Paris article: http://www.fotopedia.com/wiki/Paris
AWESOME! PERFECT! GREAT! :) !!!!!!
Thanks guys, amazing job! :)