Re: Display bigger version of a photo on a tooltip

["Michael Schmarck" <michael schmarck habmalnefrage de>]

Hello.

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Steve Dobson
<steve dobson syscall org uk> wrote:
> Hi David
>
>
>
>  On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 12:27 +0100, David Prieto wrote:
>  > > As I understand it what David is suggesting is not to zoom the current
>  > > image under the mouse but just that a little pop-up appears telling you
>  > > of all the keyboard short cuts (or just the one that are important).
>  >
>  > That's not the case. To clarify things I've added a mockup to the bug
>  > (I've preferred not to send it as an attachment), and you can see it
>  > here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=107051&action=view
>  >
>  > The idea is, as I said, to have appear when the cursor remains immobile
>  > over a picture for a second, and have it disappear when it's moved out
>  > of that picture. The size is open to discussion.
>
>  Nice mock-up.
>
>  I have discovered that if you hold down the 'v' key you get, more or
>  less, the functionality you are suggesting.

Which is what he wrote :)

>  Personally I like the 'v' key solution.

I don't.

> The functionally is just a
>  keypress away for when you need it and not there when you don't.

Same is true for "his" functionality - if you don't want a bigger
version, just don't hover over the image. As simple as that.

>  Granted that this is not as discoverable as your way, but then again it
>  allows the tool to be used in different ways.

Like?

>  Why should placing the
>  pointer over an image mean "display this one slightly bigger please"?  I

Because that's what other applications also do. And it's not just slightly
bigger, but he also suggested to display *some* metadata.

>  may want it to mean "this is currently my favourite of those I've
>  reviewed so far."

So? And what should that mean?

>  Your mock up clearly shows that what you intend would obscure images
>  around the current choice.

That would of course need to be done. Or maybe it could be made
so, that the popup is translucent and thus not totally opaque.

>  I therefore see your idea as an increase in
>  discountability at the cost of a reduction in functionality.

What functionality is reduced?

> That's a
>  poor trade off in my book.

Okay. On the other hand, I really think that there's nice
functionality added, as it allows to more easily see what
the picture actually is. It allows to do so, without being
forced to go in "View" mode and thus totally losing track
of the other pictures "around" the interesting (hovered)
picture.

Michael