wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: new promotional possibility - Fullscreen QTVR site
G. Donald Bain 2006-Jul-17 17:11:00
Dan,
Others are voicing similar concerns.
I personally don't like this sort of thumbnail, but it is the
standard for the FullscreenQTVR site.
This is in no way a substitute for the WWP site. We have no plans for
major redesign of the WWP site - we are happy with it the way it is.
Of course there are details we can add, and some improvements will be
made, but it is a very logical and usable site design and has been
crafted to suit the needs of both our participants and our viewers.
Fullscreen QTVR is a completely separate venture, part of VRWay,
founded by Marco Trezzini and Hans Nyberg to promote fullscreen QTVR.
It is easy to see why they are anxious to include the WWP - the
largest collaboration of VR producers and one of the largest
collections of fullscreen VR's. I think this sort of cooperation and
mutual promotion is good for everyone.
There are weaknesses in the Fullscreen QTVR site design - the
navigation in particular is terrible. Try finding your own panorama
on the test site - an exercise in frustration. But this is something
that can be improved later.
Similarly, we want viewers on Fullscreen QTVR to gravitate over to
the WWP site, but naturally VRWay wants to keep them on their site. A
balance needs to be struck.
The question right now is the principle involved - do we want to
allow thumbnails of the WWP to be used on another site - will it help
us or hurt us? Are there changes or additional requirements we will
need to ask for before approval?
Don
On Jul 17, 2006, at 4:50 AM, danheimsothdotcom wrote:
> I think that I would not object to including my contributions in
> that new format, but I do have a few concerns.
>
> I don't really care for the use of equirectangular thumbnails. I
> usually put some effort into choosing the default view of my
> entries, sort of "putting my best foot forward" in a way, and I
> appreciate that the WWP site makes use of that default view for
> thumbs.
>
> I don't really like the idea that some participants will opt-out of
> this new format and leave it as just a subset of the full event, but
> I don't see that as a show stopper for me.
>
> My biggest concern is the overall format. If this was proposed as a
> replacement format for the WWP I would vote no. The site has plenty
> of eye candy, but none of the usabiliy that an event as big as WWP
> needs. If I were to see a WWP event only through this interface it
> would appear to me as a very disorganized large database, and I
> might browse a few entries but would probably not return. Seen
> through the WWP interface the event has much better usability. I
> can browse for awhile, leave, return and easily pick up from where I
> left off, or easily re-find something I want to see again. It looks
> like the majority of events or sites listed on the Fullscreen site
> have only a handfull of panos, and the Fullscreen site interface may
> be fine for those smaller databases. But I would be concerned that
> the Fullscreen site might be many people's first exposure to WWP,
> and it could easily become their last if they don't happen to make
> it to the WWP main site but only follow links to individual panos.
> Would it be possible to somehow more strongly direct viewers to the
> main WWP site, or at least try to describe the benefits that the WWP
> site would have for viewing the event?