I've been thinking about how to represent the action when a user posts a new profile picture. (This is one of the top 10 activities in Windows Live and I'm guessing possibly in other services.)
After thinking through a bunch of alternatives (noted below), I want to suggest that we add an additional <activity:object-type> for "avatar" which would inherit from the "photo" <activity:object-type>. I don't have a strong preference on naming, but I noticed that both the "Person" and "Group" base object-types have references to an avatar so I thought his would be consistent.
Some additional thoughts on this: * Inheriting from Photo (like Blog-entry inherits from Article) is a simple, straightforward solution and existing implementers would only need to add a single additional <activity:object-type> element to their XML * This could use the "Post" <activity:verb> as many existing systems ask users to upload an avatar or profile photo. * If we added a "Update" <activity:verb> in the future, activity stream emitting systems could potentially differentiate a newly posted avatar from a user changing their avatar.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Rob Dolin <robdo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
> I’ve been thinking about how to represent the action when a user posts a
> new profile picture. (This is one of the top 10 activities in Windows Live
> and I’m guessing possibly in other services.)
Indeed, I think this is a valid use case. Documenting it on the wiki — along
with Facebook's "many of your friends have changed their profile photos"
would be good practice.
After thinking through a bunch of alternatives (noted below), I want to
> suggest that we *add an additional <activity:object-type> for “avatar”
> which would inherit from the “photo” <activity:object-type>.* I don’t
> have a strong preference on naming, but I noticed that both the “Person” and
> “Group” base object-types have references to an avatar so I thought his
> would be consistent.
Since we're discussing naming, I think I'd prefer "user-photo" or
"profile-photo" since "avatar" has connotations in the Second Life community
(and other 3D avatar communities).
> Some additional thoughts on this:
> * Inheriting from Photo (like Blog-entry inherits from Article) is a
> simple, straightforward solution and existing implementers would only need
> to add a single additional <activity:object-type> element to their XML
Agreed.
> * This could use the “Post” <activity:verb> as many existing systems ask
> users to upload an avatar or profile photo.
Yes.
> * If we added a “Update” <activity:verb> in the future, activity stream
> emitting systems could potentially differentiate a newly posted avatar from
> a user changing their avatar.
I think this is covered by ATOM's built in mechanism for specifying a "last
updated" date — but Mart would know better than me.
> What do others think? Thanks much—
> All in all, big +1. ;)
I wonder if this could possibly help "push" out profile photos to systems
that rely on external user photos (I'm thinking mostly of Twitter) — so that
when a user changes their profile photo. the app knows to update the cache?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
> After thinking through a bunch of alternatives (noted below), I want to >> suggest that we *add an additional <activity:object-type> for “avatar” >> which would inherit from the “photo” <activity:object-type>.* I don’t >> have a strong preference on naming, but I noticed that both the “Person” and >> “Group” base object-types have references to an avatar so I thought his >> would be consistent.
> Since we're discussing naming, I think I'd prefer "user-photo" or > "profile-photo" since "avatar" has connotations in the Second Life community > (and other 3D avatar communities).
That being said, it's indeed used to describe a 'virtual self' (a 3D representation in a chat env, second life, wow, etc) and not so much for a regular plain old picture, in OpenSocial we went for 'Profile' to describe the person entry so profile photo would be a conveniently compatible terminology from that perspective
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Chris Chabot <chab...@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> After thinking through a bunch of alternatives (noted below), I want to >>> suggest that we *add an additional <activity:object-type> for “avatar” >>> which would inherit from the “photo” <activity:object-type>.* I don’t >>> have a strong preference on naming, but I noticed that both the “Person” and >>> “Group” base object-types have references to an avatar so I thought his >>> would be consistent.
>> Since we're discussing naming, I think I'd prefer "user-photo" or >> "profile-photo" since "avatar" has connotations in the Second Life community >> (and other 3D avatar communities).
> That being said, it's indeed used to describe a 'virtual self' (a 3D > representation in a chat env, second life, wow, etc) and not so much for a > regular plain old picture, in OpenSocial we went for 'Profile' to describe > the person entry so profile photo would be a conveniently compatible > terminology from that perspective
ps, what I forgot to add (as does tend to happen before morning coffee) is that one of the reasons we tried to go for neutral names in OpenSocial (displayName, profileUrl, etc) is because a entity in the system doesn't have to be a person, it could also be a website (for example in Google Friend Connect the owner == the website), a contact in a CRM system, or any kind of social object, and it feels a bit funny to have a 'user photo' for a website :)
It sounds like there’s good reason for profile-photo. I’ll write this up as a wiki page for http://wiki.ActivityStrea.ms/.
Thanks again—
--Rob
From: activity-streams@googlegroups.com [mailto:activity-streams@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Chabot
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:05 PM
To: activity-streams@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Idea: <activity:object-type> for avatar / profile picture
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Chris Chabot <chab...@google.com<mailto:chab...@google.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com<mailto:chris.mess...@gmail.com>> wrote:
After thinking through a bunch of alternatives (noted below), I want to suggest that we add an additional <activity:object-type> for “avatar” which would inherit from the “photo” <activity:object-type>. I don’t have a strong preference on naming, but I noticed that both the “Person” and “Group” base object-types have references to an avatar so I thought his would be consistent.
Since we're discussing naming, I think I'd prefer "user-photo" or "profile-photo" since "avatar" has connotations in the Second Life community (and other 3D avatar communities).
That being said, it's indeed used to describe a 'virtual self' (a 3D representation in a chat env, second life, wow, etc) and not so much for a regular plain old picture, in OpenSocial we went for 'Profile' to describe the person entry so profile photo would be a conveniently compatible terminology from that perspective
ps, what I forgot to add (as does tend to happen before morning coffee) is that one of the reasons we tried to go for neutral names in OpenSocial (displayName, profileUrl, etc) is because a entity in the system doesn't have to be a person, it could also be a website (for example in Google Friend Connect the owner == the website), a contact in a CRM system, or any kind of social object, and it feels a bit funny to have a 'user photo' for a website :)
> It sounds like there’s good reason for profile-photo. I’ll write this up as a wiki page forhttp://wiki.ActivityStrea.ms/.
> Thanks again—
> --Rob
> From: activity-streams@googlegroups.com [mailto:activity-streams@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Chabot
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:05 PM
> To: activity-streams@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Idea: <activity:object-type> for avatar / profile picture
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Chris Chabot <chab...@google.com<mailto:chab...@google.com>> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com<mailto:chris.mess...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> After thinking through a bunch of alternatives (noted below), I want to suggest that we add an additional <activity:object-type> for “avatar” which would inherit from the “photo” <activity:object-type>. I don’t have a strong preference on naming, but I noticed that both the “Person” and “Group” base object-types have references to an avatar so I thought his would be consistent.
> Since we're discussing naming, I think I'd prefer "user-photo" or "profile-photo" since "avatar" has connotations in the Second Life community (and other 3D avatar communities).
> That being said, it's indeed used to describe a 'virtual self' (a 3D representation in a chat env, second life, wow, etc) and not so much for a regular plain old picture, in OpenSocial we went for 'Profile' to describe the person entry so profile photo would be a conveniently compatible terminology from that perspective
> ps, what I forgot to add (as does tend to happen before morning coffee) is that one of the reasons we tried to go for neutral names in OpenSocial (displayName, profileUrl, etc) is because a entity in the system doesn't have to be a person, it could also be a website (for example in Google Friend Connect the owner == the website), a contact in a CRM system, or any kind of social object, and it feels a bit funny to have a 'user photo' for a website :)
Would <link rel="preview" type="image/jpeg" href="{URL_to_photo}" /> also be
the appropriate construct to use within an <author> element if one wishes to
convey the profile photo to use for the author for that particular activity?
Or, as suggested earlier, a PoCo extension?
Or...? There seem to be no shortage of reasonable solutions, just no
absolute winner for this use case.
--
John Panzer / Google
jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Oct 12, 1:42 pm, Rob Dolin <robdo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the great feedback Chris and Chris.
> > It sounds like there’s good reason for profile-photo. I’ll write this up
> as a wiki page forhttp://wiki.ActivityStrea.ms/.
> > Thanks again—
> > --Rob
> > From: activity-streams@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> activity-streams@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Chabot
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:05 PM
> > To: activity-streams@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Idea: <activity:object-type> for avatar / profile picture
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Chris Chabot <chab...@google.com
> <mailto:chab...@google.com>> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com
> <mailto:chris.mess...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > After thinking through a bunch of alternatives (noted below), I want to
> suggest that we add an additional <activity:object-type> for “avatar” which
> would inherit from the “photo” <activity:object-type>. I don’t have a
> strong preference on naming, but I noticed that both the “Person” and
> “Group” base object-types have references to an avatar so I thought his
> would be consistent.
> > Since we're discussing naming, I think I'd prefer "user-photo" or
> "profile-photo" since "avatar" has connotations in the Second Life community
> (and other 3D avatar communities).
> > The word avatar has been popularized by the book Snow Crash (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash) though he wasn't the first to use
> it as such, and it originates from sanskrit (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar), either way it's a bit more widely
> used then just Second Life :)
> > That being said, it's indeed used to describe a 'virtual self' (a 3D
> representation in a chat env, second life, wow, etc) and not so much for a
> regular plain old picture, in OpenSocial we went for 'Profile' to describe
> the person entry so profile photo would be a conveniently compatible
> terminology from that perspective
> > ps, what I forgot to add (as does tend to happen before morning coffee)
> is that one of the reasons we tried to go for neutral names in OpenSocial
> (displayName, profileUrl, etc) is because a entity in the system doesn't
> have to be a person, it could also be a website (for example in Google
> Friend Connect the owner == the website), a contact in a CRM system, or any
> kind of social object, and it feels a bit funny to have a 'user photo' for a
> website :)
I find the 'rel-preview' not entirely what we're looking for here... it
seems like rel-logo or rel-profilephoto might be better (the latter
attempting to be a more accurate use of the "photo" attribute from
PoCo/vcard).
Thus for activities created by *services or companies*, we might see this:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:41 PM, John Panzer <jpan...@google.com> wrote:
> Would <link rel="preview" type="image/jpeg" href="{URL_to_photo}" /> also
> be the appropriate construct to use within an <author> element if one wishes
> to convey the profile photo to use for the author for that particular
> activity?
> Or, as suggested earlier, a PoCo extension?
> Or...? There seem to be no shortage of reasonable solutions, just no
> absolute winner for this use case.
> --
> John Panzer / Google
> jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 1:42 pm, Rob Dolin <robdo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks for the great feedback Chris and Chris.
>> > It sounds like there’s good reason for profile-photo. I’ll write this
>> up as a wiki page forhttp://wiki.ActivityStrea.ms/.
>> > Thanks again—
>> > --Rob
>> > From: activity-streams@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>> activity-streams@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Chabot
>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:05 PM
>> > To: activity-streams@googlegroups.com
>> > Subject: Re: Idea: <activity:object-type> for avatar / profile picture
>> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Chris Chabot <chab...@google.com
>> <mailto:chab...@google.com>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:chris.mess...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > After thinking through a bunch of alternatives (noted below), I want to
>> suggest that we add an additional <activity:object-type> for “avatar” which
>> would inherit from the “photo” <activity:object-type>. I don’t have a
>> strong preference on naming, but I noticed that both the “Person” and
>> “Group” base object-types have references to an avatar so I thought his
>> would be consistent.
>> > Since we're discussing naming, I think I'd prefer "user-photo" or
>> "profile-photo" since "avatar" has connotations in the Second Life community
>> (and other 3D avatar communities).
>> > The word avatar has been popularized by the book Snow Crash (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash) though he wasn't the first to
>> use it as such, and it originates from sanskrit (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar), either way it's a bit more widely
>> used then just Second Life :)
>> > That being said, it's indeed used to describe a 'virtual self' (a 3D
>> representation in a chat env, second life, wow, etc) and not so much for a
>> regular plain old picture, in OpenSocial we went for 'Profile' to describe
>> the person entry so profile photo would be a conveniently compatible
>> terminology from that perspective
>> > ps, what I forgot to add (as does tend to happen before morning coffee)
>> is that one of the reasons we tried to go for neutral names in OpenSocial
>> (displayName, profileUrl, etc) is because a entity in the system doesn't
>> have to be a person, it could also be a website (for example in Google
>> Friend Connect the owner == the website), a contact in a CRM system, or any
>> kind of social object, and it feels a bit funny to have a 'user photo' for a
>> website :)
I'd be very happy with a convention for rel=$profile_photo_relname and an
href that points at the photo. Is that sufficient? Would it be good to
have some guidelines about what the aspect ratio/source resolution should
be, for best results?
--
John Panzer / Google
jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I find the 'rel-preview' not entirely what we're looking for here... it
> seems like rel-logo or rel-profilephoto might be better (the latter
> attempting to be a more accurate use of the "photo" attribute from
> PoCo/vcard).
> Thus for activities created by *services or companies*, we might see this:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:41 PM, John Panzer <jpan...@google.com> wrote:
>> Would <link rel="preview" type="image/jpeg" href="{URL_to_photo}" /> also
>> be the appropriate construct to use within an <author> element if one wishes
>> to convey the profile photo to use for the author for that particular
>> activity?
>> Or, as suggested earlier, a PoCo extension?
>> Or...? There seem to be no shortage of reasonable solutions, just no
>> absolute winner for this use case.
>> --
>> John Panzer / Google
>> jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 1:42 pm, Rob Dolin <robdo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> > Thanks for the great feedback Chris and Chris.
>>> > It sounds like there’s good reason for profile-photo. I’ll write this
>>> up as a wiki page forhttp://wiki.ActivityStrea.ms/.
>>> > Thanks again—
>>> > --Rob
>>> > From: activity-streams@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>>> activity-streams@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Chabot
>>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:05 PM
>>> > To: activity-streams@googlegroups.com
>>> > Subject: Re: Idea: <activity:object-type> for avatar / profile picture
>>> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Chris Chabot <chab...@google.com
>>> <mailto:chab...@google.com>> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Chris Messina <
>>> chris.mess...@gmail.com<mailto:chris.mess...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> > After thinking through a bunch of alternatives (noted below), I want
>>> to suggest that we add an additional <activity:object-type> for “avatar”
>>> which would inherit from the “photo” <activity:object-type>. I don’t have a
>>> strong preference on naming, but I noticed that both the “Person” and
>>> “Group” base object-types have references to an avatar so I thought his
>>> would be consistent.
>>> > Since we're discussing naming, I think I'd prefer "user-photo" or
>>> "profile-photo" since "avatar" has connotations in the Second Life community
>>> (and other 3D avatar communities).
>>> > The word avatar has been popularized by the book Snow Crash (
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash) though he wasn't the first to
>>> use it as such, and it originates from sanskrit (
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar), either way it's a bit more widely
>>> used then just Second Life :)
>>> > That being said, it's indeed used to describe a 'virtual self' (a 3D
>>> representation in a chat env, second life, wow, etc) and not so much for a
>>> regular plain old picture, in OpenSocial we went for 'Profile' to describe
>>> the person entry so profile photo would be a conveniently compatible
>>> terminology from that perspective
>>> > ps, what I forgot to add (as does tend to happen before morning coffee)
>>> is that one of the reasons we tried to go for neutral names in OpenSocial
>>> (displayName, profileUrl, etc) is because a entity in the system doesn't
>>> have to be a person, it could also be a website (for example in Google
>>> Friend Connect the owner == the website), a contact in a CRM system, or any
>>> kind of social object, and it feels a bit funny to have a 'user photo' for a
>>> website :)
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM, John Panzer <jpan...@google.com> wrote:
> I'd be very happy with a convention for rel=$profile_photo_relname and an href that points at the photo. Is that sufficient? Would it be good to have some guidelines about what the aspect ratio/source resolution should be, for best results?
> --
> John Panzer / Google
> jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I find the 'rel-preview' not entirely what we're looking for here... it seems like rel-logo or rel-profilephoto might be better (the latter attempting to be a more accurate use of the "photo" attribute from PoCo/vcard).
>> Thus for activities created by services or companies, we might see this:
>> <link rel="logo" type="image/jpeg" href="{URL_to_photo}" />
>> ...created by people, this:
>> <link rel="profilephoto" type="image/jpeg" href="{URL_to_photo}" />
>> If that's too confusing or complicated, then perhaps we might just use "profilephoto" or a combination of old and new:
>> <link rel="preview profilephoto" type="image/jpeg" href="{URL_to_photo}" />
>> Is that kosher?
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:41 PM, John Panzer <jpan...@google.com> wrote:
>>> Would <link rel="preview" type="image/jpeg" href="{URL_to_photo}" /> also be the appropriate construct to use within an <author> element if one wishes to convey the profile photo to use for the author for that particular activity?
>>> Or, as suggested earlier, a PoCo extension?
>>> Or...? There seem to be no shortage of reasonable solutions, just no absolute winner for this use case.
>>> --
>>> John Panzer / Google
>>> jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 12, 1:42 pm, Rob Dolin <robdo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>> > Thanks for the great feedback Chris and Chris.
>>>> > It sounds like there’s good reason for profile-photo. I’ll write this up as a wiki page forhttp://wiki.ActivityStrea.ms/.
>>>> > Thanks again—
>>>> > --Rob
>>>> > From: activity-streams@googlegroups.com [mailto:activity-streams@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Chabot
>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:05 PM
>>>> > To: activity-streams@googlegroups.com
>>>> > Subject: Re: Idea: <activity:object-type> for avatar / profile picture
>>>> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Chris Chabot <chab...@google.com<mailto:chab...@google.com>> wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com<mailto:chris.mess...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> > After thinking through a bunch of alternatives (noted below), I want to suggest that we add an additional <activity:object-type> for “avatar” which would inherit from the “photo” <activity:object-type>. I don’t have a strong preference on naming, but I noticed that both the “Person” and “Group” base object-types have references to an avatar so I thought his would be consistent.
>>>> > Since we're discussing naming, I think I'd prefer "user-photo" or "profile-photo" since "avatar" has connotations in the Second Life community (and other 3D avatar communities).
>>>> > That being said, it's indeed used to describe a 'virtual self' (a 3D representation in a chat env, second life, wow, etc) and not so much for a regular plain old picture, in OpenSocial we went for 'Profile' to describe the person entry so profile photo would be a conveniently compatible terminology from that perspective
>>>> > ps, what I forgot to add (as does tend to happen before morning coffee) is that one of the reasons we tried to go for neutral names in OpenSocial (displayName, profileUrl, etc) is because a entity in the system doesn't have to be a person, it could also be a website (for example in Google Friend Connect the owner == the website), a contact in a CRM system, or any kind of social object, and it feels a bit funny to have a 'user photo' for a website :)
> I'd say to keep the rel="photo", and add another more specific rel if > you must, but rel="profilephoto" seems odd to me.
> rel="photo icon" seems to fit precedents here.
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM, John Panzer <jpan...@google.com> wrote:
>> I'd be very happy with a convention for rel=$profile_photo_relname and an href that points at the photo. Is that sufficient? Would it be good to have some guidelines about what the aspect ratio/source resolution should be, for best results? >> -- >> John Panzer / Google >> jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I find the 'rel-preview' not entirely what we're looking for here... it seems like rel-logo or rel-profilephoto might be better (the latter attempting to be a more accurate use of the "photo" attribute from PoCo/vcard). >>> Thus for activities created by services or companies, we might see this: >>> <link rel="logo" type="image/jpeg" href="{URL_to_photo}" /> >>> ...created by people, this: >>> <link rel="profilephoto" type="image/jpeg" href="{URL_to_photo}" />
>>> If that's too confusing or complicated, then perhaps we might just use "profilephoto" or a combination of old and new: >>> <link rel="preview profilephoto" type="image/jpeg" href="{URL_to_photo}" /> >>> Is that kosher? >>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:41 PM, John Panzer <jpan...@google.com> wrote:
>>>> Would <link rel="preview" type="image/jpeg" href="{URL_to_photo}" /> also be the appropriate construct to use within an <author> element if one wishes to convey the profile photo to use for the author for that particular activity? >>>> Or, as suggested earlier, a PoCo extension? >>>> Or...? There seem to be no shortage of reasonable solutions, just no absolute winner for this use case. >>>> -- >>>> John Panzer / Google >>>> jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
>>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd be very happy with a convention for rel=$profile_photo_relname and an > href that points at the photo. Is that sufficient? Would it be good to > have some guidelines about what the aspect ratio/source resolution should > be, for best results?
My strong preference would be for 1:1 ratio, but it's one of those things where no matter what gets recommended, we'll still end up with images of other aspect ratios on a regular basis.
> > I'd be very happy with a convention for rel=$profile_photo_relname and an
> > href that points at the photo. Is that sufficient? Would it be good to
> > have some guidelines about what the aspect ratio/source resolution should
> > be, for best results?
> My strong preference would be for 1:1 ratio, but it's one of those
> things where no matter what gets recommended, we'll still end up with
> images of other aspect ratios on a regular basis.
John Panzer wrote: > I am irresistibly attracted to "photo icon".
Note that unlike in HTML, Atom doesn't allow multiple relationships on a single link. Assuming what you're trying to say here is rel="photo" and rel="icon", you'd need to write out two link elements to express that.
> Note that unlike in HTML, Atom doesn't allow multiple relationships on a > single link. Assuming what you're trying to say here is rel="photo" and > rel="icon", you'd need to write out two link elements to express that.
I suppose that the best approach here would be to use rel-photo within the
<author> element, or within the <activity:actor> element. That way we don't
need to worry about getting prematurely specific. It also allows for larger
sized images, which will be increasingly important as we move to larger and
higher DPI displays...
I wrote about this problem in 2007, calling for the standard avatar/profile
photo size to be 512x512:
As for the different sizes/dimensions... hard to say. I think that we should
support various dimensions starting with 1:1 and 4:3 proportions (at any
pixel width/height). But for the most part, I think the client can do the
work to resize/position profile photos as fits their use cases.
Also, in terms of who supports which dimensions, I ALSO already did this
research:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Bob Aman <api.boba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am irresistibly attracted to "photo icon".
> > Note that unlike in HTML, Atom doesn't allow multiple relationships on a
> > single link. Assuming what you're trying to say here is rel="photo" and
> > rel="icon", you'd need to write out two link elements to express that.
> I suppose that the best approach here would be to use rel-photo within the
> <author> element, or within the <activity:actor> element. That way we don't
> need to worry about getting prematurely specific. It also allows for larger
> sized images, which will be increasingly important as we move to larger and
> higher DPI displays...
> I wrote about this problem in 2007, calling for the standard avatar/profile
> photo size to be 512x512:
> As for the different sizes/dimensions... hard to say. I think that we
> should support various dimensions starting with 1:1 and 4:3 proportions (at
> any pixel width/height). But for the most part, I think the client can do
> the work to resize/position profile photos as fits their use cases.
> Also, in terms of who supports which dimensions, I ALSO already did this
> research:
> 50x50 is far from the standard — in fact, there is NO standard.
> So... the best thing to do is just make it possible to point to a photo for
> an author and see how people adopt it.
> But, let's please get this into the spec.
> Chris
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Bob Aman <api.boba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I am irresistibly attracted to "photo icon".
>> > Note that unlike in HTML, Atom doesn't allow multiple relationships on a
>> > single link. Assuming what you're trying to say here is rel="photo" and
>> > rel="icon", you'd need to write out two link elements to express that.
- +1 on getting consensus captured (& into spec)
- Most important is just an agreed upon rel name.
- Next (nice if) is a SHOULD on aspect ratio, just as a guideline -- 1:1
or anything close would work well, you can always center.
- Not that worried about resolution, hopefully people will provide
reasonably high source resolution to allow for down-rezzing as needed.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Kevin Marks <kevinma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Atom specifies 1:1 for icon (it also specifies 2:1 for logo, ie wider than
> tall) - both SHOULD
> I'd forgotten it doesn't allow multiple rel values on a link; annoying.
> which is a reasonable place to add any new ones.
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> That's annoying.
>> I suppose that the best approach here would be to use rel-photo within the
>> <author> element, or within the <activity:actor> element. That way we don't
>> need to worry about getting prematurely specific. It also allows for larger
>> sized images, which will be increasingly important as we move to larger and
>> higher DPI displays...
>> I wrote about this problem in 2007, calling for the standard
>> avatar/profile photo size to be 512x512:
>> As for the different sizes/dimensions... hard to say. I think that we
>> should support various dimensions starting with 1:1 and 4:3 proportions (at
>> any pixel width/height). But for the most part, I think the client can do
>> the work to resize/position profile photos as fits their use cases.
>> Also, in terms of who supports which dimensions, I ALSO already did this
>> research:
>> 50x50 is far from the standard — in fact, there is NO standard.
>> So... the best thing to do is just make it possible to point to a photo
>> for an author and see how people adopt it.
>> But, let's please get this into the spec.
>> Chris
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Bob Aman <api.boba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> I am irresistibly attracted to "photo icon".
>>> > Note that unlike in HTML, Atom doesn't allow multiple relationships on
>>> a
>>> > single link. Assuming what you're trying to say here is rel="photo" and
>>> > rel="icon", you'd need to write out two link elements to express that.
As there seems to be consensus, I have added a sentence to the wiki page (http://wiki.activitystrea.ms/Profile-photo) indicating a preference (but not requirement) for a 1:1 aspect ratio.
It would be nice (should) but is not a requirement that the photo have a 1:1 aspect ratio.
The URL and metadata for a thumbnail version of the photo. The URL is represented as the value of the href attribute on an atom:link element with rel preview and a type of either image/jpeg, image/png or image/gif. Publishers SHOULD include media:width and media:height attributes on the atom:link element describing the dimensions of the linked image. Processors MAY ignore thumbnails that are of an inappropriate size for their user interface.
Use of rel="preview" for a thumbnail image is also consistent within the spec for video.
FWIW-
--Rob
From: activity-streams@googlegroups.com [mailto:activity-streams@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Panzer
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:06 PM
To: activity-streams@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Idea: <activity:object-type> for avatar / profile picture
* +1 on getting consensus captured (& into spec)
* Most important is just an agreed upon rel name.
* Next (nice if) is a SHOULD on aspect ratio, just as a guideline -- 1:1 or anything close would work well, you can always center.
* Not that worried about resolution, hopefully people will provide reasonably high source resolution to allow for down-rezzing as needed.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Kevin Marks <kevinma...@gmail.com<mailto:kevinma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Atom specifies 1:1 for icon (it also specifies 2:1 for logo, ie wider than tall) - both SHOULD
I'd forgotten it doesn't allow multiple rel values on a link; annoying.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com<mailto:chris.mess...@gmail.com>> wrote:
That's annoying.
I suppose that the best approach here would be to use rel-photo within the <author> element, or within the <activity:actor> element. That way we don't need to worry about getting prematurely specific. It also allows for larger sized images, which will be increasingly important as we move to larger and higher DPI displays...
I wrote about this problem in 2007, calling for the standard avatar/profile photo size to be 512x512:
As for the different sizes/dimensions... hard to say. I think that we should support various dimensions starting with 1:1 and 4:3 proportions (at any pixel width/height). But for the most part, I think the client can do the work to resize/position profile photos as fits their use cases.
Also, in terms of who supports which dimensions, I ALSO already did this research:
50x50 is far from the standard - in fact, there is NO standard.
So... the best thing to do is just make it possible to point to a photo for an author and see how people adopt it.
But, let's please get this into the spec.
Chris
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Bob Aman <api.boba...@gmail.com<mailto:api.boba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I am irresistibly attracted to "photo icon".
> Note that unlike in HTML, Atom doesn't allow multiple relationships on a
> single link. Assuming what you're trying to say here is rel="photo" and
> rel="icon", you'd need to write out two link elements to express that.
This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private
--
--
John Panzer / Google
jpan...@google.com<mailto:jpan...@google.com> / abstractioneer.org<http://abstractioneer.org> / @jpanzer
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Activity Streams" group.
To post to this group, send email to activity-streams@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to activity-streams+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
rel-preview, in my thinking, should correspond to a *preview* image of a
larger image or a stillframe/poster image for a video.
We are specifically not talking about a "preview" of a person but instead a
photo of a person.
I appreciate Rob's line of thinking and desire to maintain consistency, but
I think that rel-photo for an author makes more sense, since the semantics
should read:
"this is a photographic representation of the author [or actor]".
Therefore, I'm +1 rel-photo, and for a "SHOULD" that the photo use a 1:1
aspect ratio.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Rob Dolin <robdo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
> As there seems to be consensus, I have added a sentence to the wiki page (
> http://wiki.activitystrea.ms/Profile-photo) indicating a preference (but
> not requirement) for a 1:1 aspect ratio.
> It would be nice (should) but is not a requirement that the photo have a
> 1:1 aspect ratio.
> The URL and metadata for a thumbnail version of the photo. The URL is
> represented as the value of the href attribute on an atom:link element
> with rel preview and a type of either image/jpeg, image/png or image/gif.
> Publishers SHOULD include media:width and media:height attributes on the
> atom:link element describing the dimensions of the linked image. Processors
> MAY ignore thumbnails that are of an inappropriate size for their user
> interface.
> Use of rel=”preview” for a thumbnail image is also consistent within the
> spec for video.
> FWIW—
> --Rob
> *From:* activity-streams@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> activity-streams@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Panzer
> *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2009 1:06 PM
> - +1 on getting consensus captured (& into spec)
> - Most important is just an agreed upon rel name.
> - Next (nice if) is a SHOULD on aspect ratio, just as a guideline --
> 1:1 or anything close would work well, you can always center.
> - Not that worried about resolution, hopefully people will provide
> reasonably high source resolution to allow for down-rezzing as needed.
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Kevin Marks <kevinma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Atom specifies 1:1 for icon (it also specifies 2:1 for logo, ie wider than
> tall) - both SHOULD
> I'd forgotten it doesn't allow multiple rel values on a link; annoying.
> which is a reasonable place to add any new ones.
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> That's annoying.
> I suppose that the best approach here would be to use rel-photo within the
> <author> element, or within the <activity:actor> element. That way we don't
> need to worry about getting prematurely specific. It also allows for larger
> sized images, which will be increasingly important as we move to larger and
> higher DPI displays...
> I wrote about this problem in 2007, calling for the standard avatar/profile
> photo size to be 512x512:
> As for the different sizes/dimensions... hard to say. I think that we
> should support various dimensions starting with 1:1 and 4:3 proportions (at
> any pixel width/height). But for the most part, I think the client can do
> the work to resize/position profile photos as fits their use cases.
> Also, in terms of who supports which dimensions, I ALSO already did this
> research:
> 50x50 is far from the standard — in fact, there is NO standard.
> So... the best thing to do is just make it possible to point to a photo for
> an author and see how people adopt it.
> But, let's please get this into the spec.
> Chris
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Bob Aman <api.boba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am irresistibly attracted to "photo icon".
> > Note that unlike in HTML, Atom doesn't allow multiple relationships on a
> > single link. Assuming what you're trying to say here is rel="photo" and
> > rel="icon", you'd need to write out two link elements to express that.
> This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private
> --
> --
> John Panzer / Google
> jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Activity Streams" group.
> To post to this group, send email to activity-streams@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> activity-streams+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<activity-streams%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=en > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Activity Streams" group.
> To post to this group, send email to activity-streams@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=en.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Bob Aman <api.boba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm -1 for rel-preview.
> -1 for rel="preview" for the same reasons.
> -Bob Aman
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Activity Streams" group.
> To post to this group, send email to activity-streams@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=en.
-- --
John Panzer / Google
jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:53 PM, John Panzer <jpan...@google.com> wrote:
> I'm +1 on rel-photo, +0 on rel-preview, +1 on SHOULD have 1:1 aspect
> ratio.
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Bob Aman <api.boba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'm -1 for rel-preview.
>> -1 for rel="preview" for the same reasons.
>> -Bob Aman
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Activity Streams" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to activity-streams@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=en.
> --
> --
> John Panzer / Google
> jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Activity Streams" group.
> +1 on rel-photo (per hCard, PoCo) -1 on rel-preview +1 on SHOULD 1:1
> ratio
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:53 PM, John Panzer <jpan...@google.com>
> wrote:
> I'm +1 on rel-photo, +0 on rel-preview, +1 on SHOULD have 1:1 aspect
> ratio.
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Bob Aman <api.boba...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm -1 for rel-preview.
> -1 for rel="preview" for the same reasons.
> -Bob Aman
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Activity Streams" group.
> To post to this group, send email to activity- > streams@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=en > .
> -- > --
> John Panzer / Google
> jpan...@google.com / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Activity Streams" group.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Activity Streams" group.
> To post to this group, send email to activity- > streams@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=en > .
