Forum:Image hover text

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Image hover text
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 1 July 2010 by Soldier 1033.


As some of you may have seen, I and Haloolah recently had a somewhat heated discussion about image hover text in articles. Specifically, item images in item infoboxes. I'd like to have it set in stone whether or not to do this and I thought the best way would be consensus. In an effort to represent both sides I have listed some pros and cons below. Discuss away. ShinyUnown T | C | E 22:38, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Pros

  • ISO
  • The path of a file looks like broken code as hovertext

Feel free to add

Cons

  • Have to edit out the hover text if you want to copy to make a signature or something

Feel free to add

Read Before Commenting

As everyone seems hung up on this, I am ONLY wanting to remove them from infoboxes. ALL other image captions would be kept.

Example: Okay, let's say you have images turned off, right? You are looking at the page for oranges. Above the infobox it says "Orange" in big bold letters. In the image space of infobox is says "Orange". How does this possibly help you? It doesn't.

As everyone seems caught up on this, I thought I would make it plain and simple. HaloTalk 00:12, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Strong Oppose - The name is in the search bar (when someone search's for the item), the URl when they go to the page, the article title, and the infobox header. I think 4 times is plenty and a 5th time is unnecessary. As we have basically unlimited space, I think the "takes up more space" con should be removed. I would also argue that the code doesn't look broken, and that if anything that is a matter of personal opinion. As to ISO, I believe it is unnecessary for the reasons listed above. I would like to make it clear that I ONLY oppose using hover text in infobox images. Any other image should have it. HaloTalk 22:45, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

I would propose whatever the outcome of this, it should be added to the style guide to avoid further confusion. HaloTalk 22:56, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The hover text, tooltip, mouseover text are just added little helpers and without it you still know a very good amount of what you're looking up. I like to think of them as the small cluster of blueberries in a muffin, not needed but nice. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 22:53, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't see why not, however, there isn't any need to. Ajraddatz Talk 22:59, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

My reason is mainly that it's overkill and doesn't provide any benefit in my opinion, but it is easier for me to do certain things without. If other people feel differently, I'll just deal with it. Can't sacrifice the will of the community for the preferences of one person. And sorry about all the edit conflicts...like 3 were mine lol. HaloTalk 23:04, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
I see what you are saying, and it would take a while to enforce :3 Ajraddatz Talk 23:14, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
Very true, but just because the path may be hard or long doesn't turn me away. HaloTalk 23:17, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - For pretty much the same reason as Ajraddatz, there isn't any actual reason NOT to do it, but it also doesn't really fulfill a need. BerserkHackr 23:13, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - From the view of an editor of images, hover text makes it more confusing to work around the images, and it would only add another step to have to add it back. From the standpoint of a viewer, even if I had images turned off, seeing the filename of an image helps me know that there was an image in that location, rather than just a repeated line - important information shouldn't be in the hover of an image, it should be in the article text. My oppose is very definite on infobox item images, where, since it makes no sense to put information in the hover there anyways, shouldn't need to have a line of non-information. Riblet15 23:31, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

How on Earth does it make it "more confusing"? You should not be forced to "add another step to have to add it back" and almost no-one has images turned off. LordDarkPhantom 15:45, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I support adding hover text when it makes sense, along the same vein as a caption (but not as a replacement for a caption). But I don't really think that the default is so bad for an end-user, and don't think there's a huge need for it on the item infobox template (where it would only default to the item name). But if we establish a good pro for them, do it. None of those cons are valid in my eyes. The space is a non-issue. The URL most browsers show at the bottom of the window when you hover over a Wiki image still gives enough information to see the file name, so the part about it hurting editors really isn't an issue. Just look at that URL and the file name will be obvious. And who cares about peoples' convenience in making signatures? Come on.

But yeah, I also don't see huge arguments in favour of them either, particularly a default tooltip text. Wouldn't most image's file name work as well for ISO as whatever we would override it with? If there is a strong case from search optimization, I would support it. Endasil (Talk) @  23:47, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'm lazy, that's why I added the other 2. The first one isn't an issue as I said above. I see nothing that we benefit from adding hover text to a picture in infobox template. I've never heard of anyone using hover text from an infobox image to obtain the name of an item. Sounds ridiculous to me. HaloTalk 02:07, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - What difference does it make? The image name is just the page name. As space is not an issue, what's the point? --LiquidTalk 01:42, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Slight support - I see the points made above, but given that space is not an issue for us (an any caption will take up negligible space anyway), I see no harm in adding them. Another benefit is usability for those who have images turned off in their browser - the caption/hover text is displayed instead. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear that this is only in infoboxes, where the picture presented has the name right above it. Having the name again doesn't change anything for people with images turned off. HaloTalk 19:53, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - Personally, As per above, Gaz is right, We have unlimited amounts of space, and there is truly no negative point to adding these captions... It may take more work, but it helps other people understand what some images, obviously not placed in info boxes actually are. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 16:40, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as this discussion is only regarding hover texts in info boxes you may wish to reformat your opinion. These do not display information to the viewer, they only tell, once again, what the item is. Riblet15 22:02, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Gaz.   Swizz Talk   Events!   18:20, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's say you have images turned off, right? You are looking at the page for oranges. Above the infobox it says "Orange" in big bold letters. In the image space of infobox is says "Orange". How does this possibly help you? It doesn't. Gareth's argument doesn't make sense. I am only referring to infoboxes. ALL other image captions would be kept. HaloTalk 00:10, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Qoute from Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#Alt text and caption:

Alt text and caption
Zero or more of these options may be specified to control the alt text, link title, and caption for the image. Captions may contain embedded wiki markup, such as links or formatting. See Wikipedia:Captions for discussion of appropriate caption text. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images for discussion of appropriate alt text. Internet Explorer displays the link title as a tooltip but other browsers may not.

alt=Alt
Use Alt as the alt text for the image.
Caption
(any text that is not recognised as some other part of the image syntax): How this text is used depends on the image type. When the type has a visible caption ("thumbnail", "thumb", "frame" or "framed") then this text appears as a caption below the image. Otherwise, (if the image type is unspecified or is "frameless"), this text is used for the link title provided the link has not been suppressed with "|link=", and also for the alt text provided an explicit alt=Alt has not been supplied.

The actual alt text for the displayed image will be one of the following, in order of preference:

  1. The explicitly requested Alt, if any;
  2. The explicitly requested Caption, if the image type has no visible caption;
  3. The empty string, if there an explicitly requested Caption and the image type has a visible caption.
  4. The image file name if there is no explicitly requested Alt or Caption. This is never a satisfactory option.

It is only possible to specify the link title text for images with no visible caption (as described above). However, as not all browsers display this text, and it is ignored by screen readers, there is little point.


Now with that quote (Template:cquote2 didn't work for this), you can argue that ever picture must have hover text, but not everyone is going to do so and secondly we are not Wikipedia. However you can argue that it appears better than nothing (preference four). Ryan PM 00:49, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


Support hover text - Should not be forced although certainly not removed, almost nobody doesn't have images turned on, I don't see a hindrance (if you want filepath, just click the image and copy the header). Also, in the cons, "Have to edit out the hover text if you want to copy to make a signature or something": it takes seconds to edit out hover text, you only have one signature -.-, no point to remove it in the first place! LordDarkPhantom 15:45, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

I make signatures for other people often times. Sure, one is no big deal, but 2 per signature, it stacks up pretty quickly. It gets annoying after a while. HaloTalk 20:08, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Changing to support alt text on infoboxes - I still don't feel it's a big deal, but the Wikipedia guideline reinforced my original gut feeling that it's not cool to not have an alt text. The cons aren't compelling from the POV that matters to me: the end reader. Also, we can make it unique and useful. I suggest we don't default to the item name but rather use an alt-text like "{{PAGENAME}} as seen in the inventory" for item infoboxes, or something similar. That way we're actually getting something out of it, and when images are disabled it gives a description of what the image actually is. Endasil (Talk) @  06:52, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

In infoboxes it is almost always what it looks like in the invy. I don't see that this provides any benefit. It still just tells them the name of the item. I believe that doesn't have any benefit and just makes it harder for certain people here to do some of the things they like to do. HaloTalk 20:11, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Remove ALL hover text - We're dealing with another petty issue here. I don't see any reason whatsoever to add text just when highlighting over an image. It's dumb. Really. --Coolnesse 20:02, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose hover text - It's ridiculous. I'm on the page for Logs, I see an image in an infobox that says "Logs", why would I also need a hovertext to make it clear that this is about logs? And when item images are used in articles other than their own, their names are usually also there in text. There's simply no point to this. Let's spend our time on something useful instead. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:48, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also, it is handy for experienced editors to know where the image path is, especially with Wikia's latest image update. Ajraddatz Talk 20:51, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Is it possible for the default hover text on all images to be changed? If the default were, say, the name of the image without the File: prefix or extension it wouldn't look unprofessional. Riblet15 00:56, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

If you made some JS or something, yes. ShinyUnown T | C | E 01:44, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - there is no consensus to use hover text. Andrew talk 23:24, July 1, 2010 (UTC)