Closed edgartdata closed 2 years ago
As what was a subsequent step in regard to the second bullet item above, “In Mirador 3 the functionality bar (somewhat transparent) covers the bottom of the image: it will take some time to change this because Mirador 3 is an open source product. The group will reach out to various IIIF channels to explore this question. (@robl if you are going to contact the Mirador Slack channel…,” please see these two comments in #56:
https://github.com/ycba-cia/blacklight-collections2/issues/56#issuecomment-817805973 https://github.com/ycba-cia/blacklight-collections2/issues/56#issuecomment-817954429
@yulgit1 After a brief conversation with Martina yesterday who commented on her strong aversion to the semi-opaque functionality bar, please may with prioritize the enhancements to the viewer, with a mind towards lowering it so that it does not obstruct the image. Thank you very much.
@EdwardTown1 I put in a ticket with mirador3 3 weeks ago. Unfortunately this requires a change with mirador3 itself, and might not get picked up by the project developers. I am not familiar with the mirador3 codebase so it would take considerable time to come up to speed myself, but I will continue to investigate when I can.
Removing (or at least narrowing) the semi-opaque bar is a non-trivial change which will require a different javascript framework, and the creation of plugins for mirador3, which I'm working towards. But one thing I can change now, which I think is a significant improvement, is to remove the thumbnail bar from the pages requiring the copyright display with the smaller viewer. @mxgold @edgartdata @EdwardTown1, see screenshots below, if you let me know by the end of day today, I can make this change before I am away for 7 days starting Thursday.
@yulgit1 Not an answer to your question I am afraid but just a request for clarification: how would users have access to the other images for one specific object?
They can use the navigation buttons on the opaque bar.
I’m liking the removal of the thumbnail bar from the smaller viewer. Thanks, Eric!
At least two concerns about removal of the thumbnail bar in this context:
I would like to see the thumbnail bar hidden initially, but I would not like to lose it completely. The image ribbon allows users to get to what they need swiftly, and sets out what is on offer (i.e. + 1 to Francis' point 1). With this in mind, is it possible to have it hidden but then bring it up?
Most objects with copyright (and thus the rendering of the small viewer) usually have only 1 or a small number of images, but there may be exceptions.
And yes the option to manipulate the thumbnails is in the little book icon (top right). We could initially set it 'off' for the both the small and large viewer, or just the small viewer. Let me know.
@flapka 's point 2 about consistent UX is ringing true for me. I would suggest that if everyone feels that people will readily figure out how to bring up the thumbnail bar, it may be best to start with it consistently toggled off; or if that seems to risk people not realizing that the thumbnail bar and its additional images are available, perhaps it's worth the tradeoff of always starting with the bar open (as the intersection of discoverability and consistency)? These seem important factors to weigh.
I have deployed the following commit: https://github.com/ycba-cia/blacklight-collections2/commit/bf984a86c97be66b88f89ed7ae30f3d9204dbb22 to the test instance: https://collections-test.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:21179
This changes the javascript framework to use Webpack in addition to Sprockets, allowing use of ES6, which in turn enables the ability to use mirador3 plugins. One of those plugins, which I added to the collections-test deployment, is a download plugin, accessible via the three vertical dot icon in the upper right of the viewers. I find this option kind of nice.
Also in this commit I've turned off thumbnails by default, which is all configurable however you want it from the book icon (upper-right), and which is easily configurable back on by default.
More forthcoming on ways to remove/minimize the opaque bar.
For RBM, a default view omitting a thumbnail bar would be an undesirable change. It may be more aesthetically pleasing, but it's inferior in functionality.
I hesitate to ask this, because I definitely don't have a full understanding of the logistics and (time) commitments we've invested in implementing the Mirador 3 viewer, but: are we firmly tethered to Mirador 3? There are a number of details that I prefer in the Universal Viewer as implemented in the new YUL digital collections platform, e.g. with this object: https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/2052913. Much of this is subjective, but I like:
@flapka Horse in midstream at this point but not firmly tethered to mirador 3. See screenshots below for a quick UV POC. Curious to hear people preferences.
Also to consider given default config as is in screenshots: removing the metadata from mirador3, (or alternatively adding "More Information" to UV) as one could make the case that having the embeddedIIIF viewer metadata is redundant to the tombstone data below on the blacklight page, one could also say the options aren't a bad thing). Also I don't see a config for UV to display the featured image caption. But for either viewer it seems we do want thumbnail navigation (at least for the full sized, non-copyright image display).
Deployed: https://github.com/ycba-cia/blacklight-collections2/commit/605cf8241338695a239ebd8a5807fad7744eaa80 https://github.com/ycba-cia/blacklight-collections2/commit/55c124fb3c8c0a484e1d40e787cf4aed15ff87dd https://github.com/ycba-cia/blacklight-collections2/commit/9c71039c0fa64f264b05d3ea75d52ecd525a8f9a https://github.com/ycba-cia/blacklight-collections2/commit/b62d3fbed77f27c470ca0ca87aa6d203434f1bdd https://github.com/ycba-cia/blacklight-collections2/pull/307/commits/55c124fb3c8c0a484e1d40e787cf4aed15ff87dd
These are transparent changes that fix dependent library vulnerabilities and add the Webpack javascript framework allowing use of ES6, which in turn enables the ability to use mirador3 plugins.
Regarding the removal of the opaque bar request, please compare these screenshots. Improvement or not?
In consultation with RB colleagues:
I think the two screenshots where the opaque bar is the height of one row of text, with the tools moved from the bar to the UL corner instead, are a good improvement.
From: yulgit1 @.> Reply-To: ycba-cia/blacklight-collections2 @.> Date: Friday, July 9, 2021 at 4:44 PM To: ycba-cia/blacklight-collections2 @.> Cc: Melissa Fournier @.>, Mention @.***> Subject: Re: [ycba-cia/blacklight-collections2] Mirador 3 enhancements (#300)
Regarding the removal of the opaque bar request, please compare these screenshots. Improvement or not?
[Screen Shot 2021-07-09 at 4 38 04 PM]https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuser-images.githubusercontent.com%2F2125400%2F125133991-a2908180-e0d4-11eb-810c-8737747148f3.png&data=04%7C01%7Cmelissa.fournier%40yale.edu%7C2fa20831df364791896208d9431a6300%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637614602895945380%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2F6mOoxmiSaMeOVUvdM2O23G0cOCja5k%2F9f2laTC%2F%2B1Q%3D&reserved=0 [Screen Shot 2021-07-09 at 4 38 15 PM]https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuser-images.githubusercontent.com%2F2125400%2F125134002-a7edcc00-e0d4-11eb-808e-7bd7ad0ddcab.png&data=04%7C01%7Cmelissa.fournier%40yale.edu%7C2fa20831df364791896208d9431a6300%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637614602895955339%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=GYm3StNaFDvMKTMw1dArz2UDPkP7pqxbHVHeuYYhBd0%3D&reserved=0 [Screen Shot 2021-07-09 at 4 39 04 PM]https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuser-images.githubusercontent.com%2F2125400%2F125134005-aa502600-e0d4-11eb-90e1-5fa48676c704.png&data=04%7C01%7Cmelissa.fournier%40yale.edu%7C2fa20831df364791896208d9431a6300%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637614602895955339%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=g34aT06ajQfdUP2mC3%2FPcVCnssAHs6cDjoFr5LOx0fI%3D&reserved=0 [Screen Shot 2021-07-09 at 4 39 16 PM]https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuser-images.githubusercontent.com%2F2125400%2F125134011-acb28000-e0d4-11eb-81bd-79741cc06078.png&data=04%7C01%7Cmelissa.fournier%40yale.edu%7C2fa20831df364791896208d9431a6300%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637614602895965299%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=lT7AM5Lg3E0E%2BD%2FeWW6vrXlsS56kQdzbmqAD%2BrGQoVs%3D&reserved=0
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fycba-cia%2Fblacklight-collections2%2Fissues%2F300%23issuecomment-877446453&data=04%7C01%7Cmelissa.fournier%40yale.edu%7C2fa20831df364791896208d9431a6300%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637614602895965299%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=FBcHlQrdwBHl6Govi2qOYD2ldb7kdSCtO6jixjm%2FRck%3D&reserved=0, or unsubscribehttps://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAIWY3ICXJ2SQIOS2UXXPHW3TW5NT3ANCNFSM43O3WT4A&data=04%7C01%7Cmelissa.fournier%40yale.edu%7C2fa20831df364791896208d9431a6300%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637614602895975255%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ZiTcD8LbCs1oeLsFpSWTTMQU7ZVK8IDNrCwuz77YnJU%3D&reserved=0.
I agree with @mxgold about implementing in production the changes you suggest @yulgit1
@yulgit1 I also agree with @flapka on using the set of zoom controls that is light gray and not on the image.
At some point would we want to offer several to choose from? At past IIIF conferences, I have heard library colleagues say that for library collections the Universal Viewer is slightly better than Mirador.
Here is the Bodleian Library manuscript seen with Universal Viewer: https://iiif.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/iiif/viewer/56911adf-3d32-4a52-a9c6-653eb5bd6cb7?_gl=1*1u64ptk*_ga*MTYzOTU0NDcuMTYxOTgwMjI3NA..*_ga_5590MKBQHR*MTYyNjEwMTYxMi4xLjEuMTYyNjEwMjQxNi4w#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=-3138%2C-405%2C16256%2C8088
And the same manuscript seen with Mirador 2: https://iiif.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/iiif/mirador/56911adf-3d32-4a52-a9c6-653eb5bd6cb7?_gl=1*y8vwby*_ga*MTYzOTU0NDcuMTYxOTgwMjI3NA..*_ga_5590MKBQHR*MTYyNjEwMTYxMi4xLjEuMTYyNjEwMjM3NS4w
The toggle between the viewers is a menu top left under the Digital Bodleian logo.
@yulgit1 Once a user expands the Mirador viewer to full frame, is there a way to make the Window views and thumbnail display configuration settings more visible so that users are prompted a bit more proactively to try different configurations?
On 7/30/21 we discussed how the default viewer setting of hiding the ribbon of thumbnails still has some of the transparent bar covering the image, so it would not be an improvement. Removing the thumbnails would also not be desirable for the RB&MS collection.
Instead, we would like to see how our images appear in the IIIF viewer Universal Viewer (which is the viewer implemented by the Beinecke Digital Library: https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/2020830 or https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/2029171 and soon to be implemented by the overall YUL). In the case of Beinecke's images in UV, it is interesting to note that the default viewer, as configured to appear above the metadata record, does not show the other images/thumbnails. The additional images only appear when the user enlarges the viewer to take up all the space of the screen, or when using the toggle arrows to the left and right of the main image.
UV implementation, check examples like:
https://collections-test.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:1521 https://collections-test.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/orbis:9452785
All, please opine.
One issue with this, as the UV embed is, it relies on the universalviewer.io viewer and javascript code, and the mechanism for making any configurations doesn't appear to work. I've asked on the universalviewer slack channel, (615 people strong, which bodes well to the sustainability of the embed source), but have not received any answer yet.
Screen captures for comparison purposes:
One thing I have noticed with UV is that when I make the viewer full screen it zoom a bit on a random area of the image that is not quite the center, as in this example with the Helmingham bestiary which has also the side effect of locking the screen, i.e. I can't recenter the image or even zoom out. Is that what you mean about the problem with the configuration? And if yes, I wonder if Michael Appleby might have a fix since UV is working well for the Beinecke?
Thanks for putting this together @yulgit1 . I like UV much better, as do my RB colleagues. Also:
Hi all, I am back from parental leave and catching up on everything I missed. I also prefer UV and do not like when images are covered by navigation bars. Also I am not experiencing the glitch that was mentioned so perhaps it has already been worked out?
@yulgit1 The viewer for https://collections-test.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:1521 and https://collections-test.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/orbis:9452785 seems to have reverted to Mirador 3?
I've been doing other testing on collections-test, so had to use it for another branch, will but will put the UV back up when I'm done.
All, universal viewer is back up. I set it up now so it is not using any outside dependencies for the embed and UV viewer backend. And the full page glitch should now be fixed. When using, please see for both full images and copyrighted images (where the image size is restricted). Also try different browser widths to mimic tablet/phone display as UV has some dynamic behavior in the display of the side panels and thumbnails, which is nice I think. I couldn't get the attribution box to not display using standard configuration or styling. We should also discuss other ways of presenting captions, given the UV native download functionality.
https://collections-test.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/orbis:9452785 https://collections-test.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:41361 (smaller copyright image)
I like this. If we do opt for UV, I assume we will also make it the viewer that appears when we click on the iiif button?
Today 8/6 we talked about these default config:
Question to all: Do we want to keep the UV download button in addition to the BlackLight Download/Print Selected Image?
@yulgit1 Display of thumbnail tray in UV appears to be dependent on window height (window width has no impact), based on consistent testing results in Chrome, Firefox, and Edge.
@mxgold @flapka Do we want to hide the UV image download button?
@yulgit1 @mxgold Looks like the image captions are not coming through in UV yet? https://collections-test.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:34
@edgartdata - Does UV even support captions? I see no configuration for it and it is not in any of the examples I could find:
https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/2026077 https://digital.library.illinois.edu/items/05a4ac70-794f-0135-0162-0050569601ca-4 https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/1044538#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=-1358%2C-223%2C5412%2C4449 https://iiif.onb.ac.at/view/manifest/universalviewer/unknown/+Z196807705#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=9&r=0&xywh=-704%2C0%2C5794%2C3293
A reason perhaps to keep thumbnails open for museum objects like library objects. Also this makes the argument for mirador3. One of the reason for trying UV was people disliked the opaque bar with the caption. If UV is the better choice because of this, why not just suppress the caption in mirador3? Not advocating for either, just stating.
re: @edgartdata query on hiding UV download button: @edgartdata It could make for a confusing user experience to have both UV download and blacklight download buttons, so perhaps we would want to hide it. @yulgit1 is it possible to make the UV download button appearance conditional on object copyright status = public domain? (I actually have the same question about the current Blacklight button, but will open a separate issue with that question so as not to muddy the waters.)
re @edgartdata UV caption issue: I note the captions are visible in the contents / thumbnail tray, so it doesn't strike me as problematic that they don't appear in the main single image view. For me, this is the primary function of the caption - to distinguish one view of an object from another when multiple views are published. However, the captions in the contents tray are truncated, and I can't seem to find a way to view them in full, which could be a problem. @yulgit1 any ideas?
@mxgold Having multiple ways to do the same thing is supposedly "user friendly" (think Microsoft Office Suite functions). Mirador3 also has download, the 3 vertical bar button upper right. I think it's possible to suppress the download in both UV and Mirador, but I like the options. Regarding captions, again see my post above, it doesn't seem configurable in UV.
Image technical captions show when the contents pane is made bigger (click on the 4 square icon top right):
I am also told by Tristan Roddis (CogApp and my IIIF wg co-chair :) ) that UV supports canvas-level metadata so if we add captions for each image then the captions will show in the "About this item" panel. Would it be something we would want to/could do?
Is there anything here that is helpful? UniversalViewer/universalviewer#758
Just a remider that we will be showing the new UV image viewer to Mark and Martina next week on Wednesday September 29 at 11:30.
On the absence of an image caption, I pass along this helpful comment from Molly:
I believe this lack of a short image caption with/below the large image could be an issue in the following instance: You’re viewing images using a collapsed Contents view and want to download the large image you currently have on your screen. When you click the Blacklight download button, you’re prompted to select an image but would have no way of identifying your current selection without first closing the dialog box, reopening the Contents, and then re-clicking on the download button to make your image selection. Similarly, there’s not much in the way of identifying info provided for anyone who uses the UV direct download button.
On the UV download button, another comment from Molly (pivoting off of @mxgold 's suggestion to make the button's presence conditional):
I’d like to see greater constraints around download capabilities and more prominent Terms of Use in general—and with the UV button in particular—especially since we’re currently allowing downloads of copyrighted materials (which is a CDS-level question that Laura and I have raised with Melissa separately).
Summarizing the 2 1/2 concerns from RBM:
Starting a new issue from #56 here only with Mirador 3 enhancements questions, that may be resolved at a later time (I put End of May 2021 for now but we may need to push it further).
Distorted Image in Print Preview issue: we will keep researching why this is happening but decided to go ahead with the push of Mirador 3
In Mirador 3 the functionality bar (somewhat transparent) covers the bottom of the image: it will take some time to change this because Mirador 3 is an open source product. The group will reach out to various IIIF channels to explore this question. (@robl if you are going to contact the Mirador Slack channel, I wonder if we should 'bundle' our questions?) In the meantime, the functionality bar moves to below the image in the full screen viewing mode.
The metadata area (opened via the hamburger menu at top left) is rather narrow. Could it be slightly wider? Or could the width respond to user adjustments?
Is it possible to adjust the typography for the metadata area. The fluctuations in point size seem mildly wonky, and at times I wish there was a clearer distinction (via typography) between field label and field data.
I wonder if it will be at all confusing to users that the default viewer in our object display differs (in mild ways) from the viewer that opens upon clicking the iiif icon.
FL6 Once a user clicks on the "Window views & thumbnail display" (second from top right) there seems to be no way to exit the menu without selecting a change. It'd be nice if there was a way to simply escape, without selecting a change.
Another little UX thing may be baked into Mirador but is worth noting since it may be confusing for people. Once someone is viewing an image in the full IIIF viewer, they have (in most browsers) two “X” close boxes in the upper right area: the standard one in Mirador for keeping the viewer open but removing the image, and the standard one in web browser to close that tab. People familiar with IIIF will not be fazed by this; newcomers may—especially since on hover, the Mirador “X” says “Close window,” which could really confuse people. I wonder if the on-hover text for that Mirador “X” could be overridden to be “Remove image from viewer”? That could help to mitigate this.
One more UX thing we might consider, this one for the embedded viewer: for many people, the difference between the broken-square icon for full-screen view from the embedded viewer, and going to the non-embedded IIIF viewer (if they realize what that IIIF icon can do), may not be clear (both give them a bigger image). The full-screen icon has helpful “Full screen” text on hover, which gets us partway there. How about adding on-hover text for the IIIF icon, to say “View image in full IIIF viewer” or something like that? That could also be a clue for people who have no idea what that IIIF icon is or means or does. There could be a slippery slope here if we were also to try explaining how to drag that icon, but if we avoid that temptation, maybe just a tip about what happens if a person clicks on it could be helpful.
Of course the two “hover” ideas above would only work in some interaction contexts (e.g., not on touch), but may still help.