Image hovering effects

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Image hovering effects

Remember the dot
Hello fellow developers,

In Håkon Wium Lie's recent analysis of Wikipedia image markup (
http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/image/), he makes a good
point: we include image captions both below images and again in the images'
tooltips. Also, for inline images without explicitly defined tooltips, the
image name is used as the tooltip even though it is also shown in the URL
when mousing over the image. Neither of these automatic tooltips are really
useful, and they slow down page load time on image-heavy pages.

What do you think? Should we keep the redundant tooltips, or start leaving
them out?

--
Remember the dot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image hovering effects

Steve Bennett-8
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Remember the
dot<[hidden email]> wrote:

> In Håkon Wium Lie's recent analysis of Wikipedia image markup (
> http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/image/), he makes a good
> point: we include image captions both below images and again in the images'
> tooltips. Also, for inline images without explicitly defined tooltips, the
> image name is used as the tooltip even though it is also shown in the URL
> when mousing over the image. Neither of these automatic tooltips are really
> useful, and they slow down page load time on image-heavy pages.
>
> What do you think? Should we keep the redundant tooltips, or start leaving
> them out?

Interesting, I never noticed them before - I generally use a script
(can't remember the name) which shows something completely different
when you mouseover anyway.

Testing while logged out, it looks like IE7 doesn't display them.
Chrome does - and they look ridiculous. A long caption displayed as a
tooltip is worse than useless.

So as far as I'm concerned, either make the tooltip display something
useful (like the name of the file), or get rid of them. Though there
might be accessibility issues - perhaps they're useful for screen
readers or something.

Steve

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image hovering effects

Tim Larson-2
In reply to this post by Remember the dot
Remember the dot wrote:
> What do you think? Should we keep the redundant tooltips, or start leaving
> them out?

I'm in the camp that considers them redundant.  If the title isn't adding
anything that isn't already visible, it's not helping.

One suggestion that hasn't been mentioned is leaving these as titles in
interactive settings (tooltip in web page) and using CSS to generate inline
text in others (caption when printed).  Online, images that have a tooltip
could be distinguished from those that don't by some subtle effect, like maybe
a thin border.


Tim

--
Tim Larson

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image hovering effects

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Remember the dot
2009/6/23 Remember the dot <[hidden email]>:
> Hello fellow developers,
>
> In Håkon Wium Lie's recent analysis of Wikipedia image markup (
> http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/image/), he makes a good
> point: we include image captions both below images and again in the images'
> tooltips.

This is actually only the case if you use the keyword 'thumb' or
'frame'. If you just do [[file:foo.jpg|this is my caption]], then you
only get the "tooltip" (usually called "alt" text for images).
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt_attribute>

You may be interested in reading this English Wikipedia guideline, as
part of its Manual of Style:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images>
In short, alt text is important for accessibility.

Also, for inline images without explicitly defined tooltips, the
> image name is used as the tooltip even though it is also shown in the URL
> when mousing over the image. Neither of these automatic tooltips are really
> useful, and they slow down page load time on image-heavy pages.

They might not be useful for you, but they are useful for others. On
what basis do you say they slow down page load time? I would be
surprised to find that supplying or not supplying alt text made any
difference.

Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image hovering effects

Brianna Laugher
Actually, my comment is not entirely relevant, as the caption is
actually coming from the 'title' attribute of the link around the
image. The image itself has no alt text......I don't know why it would
be implemented in this way.

Brianna


2009/6/23 Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]>:

> 2009/6/23 Remember the dot <[hidden email]>:
>> Hello fellow developers,
>>
>> In Håkon Wium Lie's recent analysis of Wikipedia image markup (
>> http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/image/), he makes a good
>> point: we include image captions both below images and again in the images'
>> tooltips.
>
> This is actually only the case if you use the keyword 'thumb' or
> 'frame'. If you just do [[file:foo.jpg|this is my caption]], then you
> only get the "tooltip" (usually called "alt" text for images).
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt_attribute>
>
> You may be interested in reading this English Wikipedia guideline, as
> part of its Manual of Style:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images>
> In short, alt text is important for accessibility.
>
> Also, for inline images without explicitly defined tooltips, the
>> image name is used as the tooltip even though it is also shown in the URL
>> when mousing over the image. Neither of these automatic tooltips are really
>> useful, and they slow down page load time on image-heavy pages.
>
> They might not be useful for you, but they are useful for others. On
> what basis do you say they slow down page load time? I would be
> surprised to find that supplying or not supplying alt text made any
> difference.
>
> Brianna
>
> --
> They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
> http://modernthings.org/
>



--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image hovering effects

Roan Kattouw-2
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
2009/6/23 Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]>:

> Also, for inline images without explicitly defined tooltips, the
>> image name is used as the tooltip even though it is also shown in the URL
>> when mousing over the image. Neither of these automatic tooltips are really
>> useful, and they slow down page load time on image-heavy pages.
>
> They might not be useful for you, but they are useful for others. On
> what basis do you say they slow down page load time? I would be
> surprised to find that supplying or not supplying alt text made any
> difference.
>
You're right, this sounds like absolute nonsense. The time it takes to
set and/or display these tooltips is nothing compared to the time it
takes to download and display the images themselves. Image-heavy pages
load slowly because they contain a lot of images (surprise!), most
other factors are negligible.

Roan Kattouw (Catrope)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image hovering effects

Daniel Kinzler
In reply to this post by Tim Larson-2
Tim Larson schrieb:

> Remember the dot wrote:
>> What do you think? Should we keep the redundant tooltips, or start leaving
>> them out?
>
> I'm in the camp that considers them redundant.  If the title isn't adding
> anything that isn't already visible, it's not helping.
>
> One suggestion that hasn't been mentioned is leaving these as titles in
> interactive settings (tooltip in web page) and using CSS to generate inline
> text in others (caption when printed).  Online, images that have a tooltip
> could be distinguished from those that don't by some subtle effect, like maybe
> a thin border.

It would be very nice to display meta information about the image, like author
and license, on hover. However, this will only become possible when we have that
info in the database at all...

-- daniel

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image hovering effects

Aryeh Gregor
In reply to this post by Remember the dot
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Remember the
dot<[hidden email]> wrote:

> In Håkon Wium Lie's recent analysis of Wikipedia image markup (
> http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/image/), he makes a good
> point: we include image captions both below images and again in the images'
> tooltips. Also, for inline images without explicitly defined tooltips, the
> image name is used as the tooltip even though it is also shown in the URL
> when mousing over the image. Neither of these automatic tooltips are really
> useful, and they slow down page load time on image-heavy pages.
>
> What do you think? Should we keep the redundant tooltips, or start leaving
> them out?

We should definitely leave them out.  They're clearly redundant.  I
tried to do this before, but the code for this is horrible and I gave
up.  The code to pass image attributes from the parser to the
appropriate image-generating class (mostly in Linker) needs to be
scrapped and rewritten from scratch.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Tim Larson<[hidden email]> wrote:
> One suggestion that hasn't been mentioned is leaving these as titles in
> interactive settings (tooltip in web page) and using CSS to generate inline
> text in others (caption when printed).

This would prohibit captions from containing markup, and not work in
IE6 or IE7.  Also, tooltips are not at all discoverable -- captions
are a much better place to put info you expect people to actually
read.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Brianna
Laugher<[hidden email]> wrote:
> This is actually only the case if you use the keyword 'thumb' or
> 'frame'. If you just do [[file:foo.jpg|this is my caption]], then you
> only get the "tooltip" (usually called "alt" text for images).
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt_attribute>

We're discussing the title attribute, not the alt attribute.  They're
entirely different.  Alt text is incorrectly rendered as a tooltip by
Internet Explorer if no title attribute is present, for historical
reasons, but no other browser does this AFAIK.  I don't think any
screen reader uses the title attribute in place of the alt attribute,
either.

Alt text can be set by itself now with [[Image:Foo.png|alt=xxx]], and
this is currently the *only* way to set it for images with captions --
it's no longer the same as the caption by default.

> They might not be useful for you, but they are useful for others.

Could you explain how a title attribute that duplicates caption text
is useful to *anyone*?

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image hovering effects

Brion Vibber-3
In reply to this post by Remember the dot
Remember the dot wrote:

> Hello fellow developers,
>
> In Håkon Wium Lie's recent analysis of Wikipedia image markup (
> http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/image/), he makes a good
> point: we include image captions both below images and again in the images'
> tooltips. Also, for inline images without explicitly defined tooltips, the
> image name is used as the tooltip even though it is also shown in the URL
> when mousing over the image. Neither of these automatic tooltips are really
> useful, and they slow down page load time on image-heavy pages.
>
> What do you think? Should we keep the redundant tooltips, or start leaving
> them out?

Where redundant they're not supposed to be there; the duplication is a bug.

-- brion

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image hovering effects

Remember the dot
In reply to this post by Roan Kattouw-2
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Roan Kattouw <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 2009/6/23 Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]>:
> > Also, for inline images without explicitly defined tooltips, the
> >> image name is used as the tooltip even though it is also shown in the URL
> >> when mousing over the image. Neither of these automatic tooltips are really
> >> useful, and they slow down page load time on image-heavy pages.
> >
> > They might not be useful for you, but they are useful for others. On
> > what basis do you say they slow down page load time? I would be
> > surprised to find that supplying or not supplying alt text made any
> > difference.
> >
> You're right, this sounds like absolute nonsense. The time it takes to
> set and/or display these tooltips is nothing compared to the time it
> takes to download and display the images themselves. Image-heavy pages
> load slowly because they contain a lot of images (surprise!), most
> other factors are negligible.

I thought someone might say that. Perhaps I care more about
performance because I've had to endure several insufferably slow
connections, and I don't want to waste limited bandwidth downloading
redundant tooltips. Sometimes I even turn images off to improve speed,
but the tooltips, as part of the page, must still be downloaded.

In any case, as others have pointed out, there are more reasons than
performance why the redundant tooltips are a bad idea.

--
Remember the dot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image hovering effects

Andrew Garrett-4

On 24/06/2009, at 7:50 AM, Remember the dot wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Roan Kattouw  
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/6/23 Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]>:
>>> Also, for inline images without explicitly defined tooltips, the
>>>> image name is used as the tooltip even though it is also shown in  
>>>> the URL
>>>> when mousing over the image. Neither of these automatic tooltips  
>>>> are really
>>>> useful, and they slow down page load time on image-heavy pages.
>>>
>>> They might not be useful for you, but they are useful for others. On
>>> what basis do you say they slow down page load time? I would be
>>> surprised to find that supplying or not supplying alt text made any
>>> difference.
>>>
>> You're right, this sounds like absolute nonsense. The time it takes  
>> to
>> set and/or display these tooltips is nothing compared to the time it
>> takes to download and display the images themselves. Image-heavy  
>> pages
>> load slowly because they contain a lot of images (surprise!), most
>> other factors are negligible.
>
> I thought someone might say that. Perhaps I care more about
> performance because I've had to endure several insufferably slow
> connections, and I don't want to waste limited bandwidth downloading
> redundant tooltips. Sometimes I even turn images off to improve speed,
> but the tooltips, as part of the page, must still be downloaded.


The slowest connection I can possibly imagine you using is 14.4 kB/s.  
At this rate, you could still download fifteen unnecessary tooltips  
per second (with the perhaps unjustified assumption that there are few  
tooltips over 1kB).

--
Andrew Garrett
Contract Developer, Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
http://werdn.us




_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image hovering effects

Aryeh Gregor
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Andrew Garrett<[hidden email]> wrote:
> The slowest connection I can possibly imagine you using is 14.4 kB/s.

That's twice as fast as the theoretical maximum speed of a 56 Kbps
modem, and probably three or four times as fast as a 56 Kbps modem in
practice.

> At this rate, you could still download fifteen unnecessary tooltips
> per second (with the perhaps unjustified assumption that there are few
> tooltips over 1kB).

If you cut that down to five per second (about 56 Kbps speed), then
you're talking about easily half a second extra for pages with a few
large tooltips.  Although after gzip it's probably more like, say, a
tenth of a second?  Nothing to sneeze at, anyway.

Cutting out unnecessary HTML does make a difference, especially to
users with slow connections.  Removing tooltips alone isn't going to
change much, but every bit is an improvement.  I bet we could cut out
10% of the size of an average page if we refactored the markup without
removing anything useful.

This is all beside the point, though, since the tooltips are
completely pointless and should be removed on that grounds alone.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l