5 Dec
2008
5 Dec
'08
8:15 p.m.
Jean-Vincent Drean wrote:
The first or the second ? did you meant b) here ?
Yes, b), but if you look carefully, you might notice there is no b) in
the text.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu
<sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
What I had in mind is something we see in thumbnails, we make the
image fit in a 320x320px square, if the height of the image is bigger
than its width then the width will be 320px, but it'll be inferior
otherwise.
I guess you meant it the other way around.
1) Image
size
------------------
In the mockup you can see a dropdown allowing to set some predefined
sizes to the image (inspired by google docs).
I don't like the text "up
to 320 pixels wide". What does "up to" mean?
It suggests a range, but it means exactly 320. I think it's the only way to guaranty that the
image will be "Small",
if we just set the width to 320px then a 320x2000px image won't be
small.
WDYT ?
Yes, this looks good. It will take a bit longer, since the image has to
be loaded and its dimensions computed in order to decide which is
larger, the width or the height.
But I still don't like the text. Can't we find a better one?
4) Preview
--------------
I've put an image preview in the mockup, we've multiple choices:
a) Drop it since it makes the dialog heavy.
a) Keep it stupid simple, the image is represented by a placeholder
and the 6 possible states are "prerecorded" (could be images).
d) Make it an advanced preview, the image is the selected image, the
preview takes the size of the image into account (by calculating what
the selected size would look like compared to the page content in a
predefined resolution, like 1024x768).
+1 for a) (the first or the second).