Board Thread:Technical Updates/@comment-26339491-20191203204132/@comment-3218221-20200628035312

While I'm here, I want to comment quickly on a few items of concern 452 has highlighted:

452 wrote:
 * When redirected to an article after clicking a used image, there is no lightbox displayed, and the user has to hunt through the page to find the image they were looking for.
 * If an image is formatted in the article as Image.jpg, (EDIT: and is only used in that 1 article) then clicking that link just refreshes the article, and does not show the lightbox, so the anon user has no convenient way to see a larger version of the image. (Edit: if the image linked that way is used in multiple articles, then it will take them directly to the other article instead of opening the lightbox)

I experienced an event like this by anonymously visiting the main articles for Saints Row and Saints Row 2; in both articles' cases, clicking the cover art in the infobox simply refreshed the article. Where I can see how examples citing image galleries might fail to rouse alarm (since the use, misuse, and usefulness of image galleries continues to be debated), surely the infobox example holds some sway? An infobox inherently draws attention to an image editors have consciously chosen to pedestal, and it's reasonable to think anonymous users might want to access 'featured' images.

I couldn't even click to view 'full size image' of the Saints Row covers as an anon because I wasn't given that option. These are not tabbed images, mind you. I imagine many anonymous users might give up trying to access the image at this point.

Also, I'm in accord with 452's full statement that the above excerpt is from. Preventing anonymous users from accessing file history / previous versions is particularly rankling in my eyes--should we view file history as lesser to article history, which anons can (oh boy) 'still access'? To what extent is this to the detriment of transparency as it is use and practicality?

Then there are image categories, which others have already invoked. If the file history inaccessibility rankles me, the implications which arise from the perspective of category navigation trouble me and would appear to undermine FANDOM's own navigational philosophies.

You've essentially removed a straightforward method for anons to access image categories (i.e. by using the category row at the head/food of a file's page)--one of the easier methods at that. Yes, I recognize that the state of file categorization widely varies between wikis. So what? Even wikis with a robust image categorization system (in which the majority of its files are included) may not link to Category:Images anywhere obvious / indicate that's where anons should look.

(I guarantee the 'convenient links' scattered across the Harry Potter Wiki as brought up by Snapper2 in #18 are not majority practice. This isn't to say Snapper2's point isn't valid or relevant, for it is; where Snapper2 has underscored the problem of neutering image categories in and of themselves, I'm underscoring the problem of inaccessibility to image categories via files.)

FANDOM has indicated it values cross-wiki uniformity with the standardized local top nav design introduced in '15 or '16 and other customization restrictions. Moreover, you showed us you considered the visible display of categories useful when you duplicated the footer category row at the top of articles; you clearly believe they are valuable as navigational tools.

But now you've effectively removed the very navigational tool you highlighted for anons with respect to files. I'm having trouble reconciling this with both the prominence you've given displayed article/file categories and the import you've attached to standardized global experiences--the latter referring to your philosophy that users need some semblance of familiarity across wikis otherwise they'll be at a loss as to how to navigate (c.f. the local top nav design decision).

All wikis must display categories at the head and foot of articles/files; surely this falls in line with your navigation standardization philosophy? After all, as I acknowledged before, many wikis will not necessarily link to Category:Images anywhere obvious (homepage, top nav, community portal). Many do not have a file policy. (Special:Images in the top nav is useful, but not a substitute for Category:Images for obvious reasons). But anons who might not think to add Category:Images to the URL might think to access an image's categories from its file page, because this is the standardized experience you've offered and highlighted until now.

There are many reasons why anon users might have cause or desire to access an image's categories. Perhaps they want a quick way to view all the book covers in a book series. Scenario: they click on a cover in book one's infobox; they access the file; hooray, 'Book Cover Images' is a category; they are satisfied with their FANDOM experience. You have now rendered this method inaccessible for the anon uesr. Now what? If this user does think to load Category:Images, good for them... Unless that wiki hasn't filed the book covers category as a sub-category of Images, alas.

This user could spend time guessing what the wiki's book cover category name is (if it has the category, which it might not), could look up how to access all categories, or, you know, they could write FANDOM off and leave the site having learned to avoid FANDOM in the future for image-related queries.

(Before one dismisses the above scenario as something constructed just for "argument's sake," let me be clear: the above method to access Image categories is one I myself use often. I've used it on wikis when I'm logged in, on wikis I admin and know full well what the image categories are, and on wikis when logged out because it is convenient. It is useful. Count me among those who will be inconvenienced.)

To summarize the Image Categories point, this move seems to directly oppose if not sabotage your previously espoused stance on the usefulness of displayed categories as navigational tools on articles and files. How do we reconcile this update with FANDOM's stances on displayed categories and standardized navigational experiences? I can't see how.