[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]

RE: [AGA-mcm] Web Site

Let me back up a second...
First, I'm not taking ANYTHING off the gallery. That's your area, you get to manage it the way you'd like. My comment was meant to explain how I felt about the photos *I* edited and placed on the website the last 2-3 conventions, and why I chose to remove them in the past after a year, and why I'm hesitant to add them back in now. I apologize for even tying my previous work in any way with the current photo gallery.
Second, there's always room for improvement. Always. I am as critical of my own work as anyone else's. So yeah, what you've got works, and the pictures you took were very good (clearly, as Amano chose to use many of them in Aqua Journal!)... so OK, now put yourself in the place of that newbie, and what they might want to see as they take a look at the 2004 convention pictures. Perhaps it's some kind of words to tie everything together? Perhaps it's melding the order and choice of photos into something that tells the story. I'm not completely sure. Maybe I'm describing an article. I will say that I never got around to it last year either, as I did some preliminary edits, ordered everything chronological, and dumped them in a big bin. 

  - Erik

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Jay Luto wrote:


Erik,


and to tell you the truth, today's e-mail was the first I've heard of

anyone actually

looking for them.


I know a lot of people who were looking forward to decent AGA gallery. No
one was asking for it in the past because not a lot of people even knew
about pictures from AGA Conventions. I have been in the hobby for a while
now and although I visited AGA website, I never tripped over any "gallery".
This time it was well advertised on AGA digest and all the aquatic and
related forums I visit. Look at the counter and see how many times gallery
was visited. Look at the list of where gallery is being linked from. Trust
me, people like it!!!.


It was my opinion that they take up space and use up bandwidth with people

sucking > down the entire website, that could otherwise be used by things
like the aquascaping > contest.

How much space and bandwidth do we have?


Never felt things were "archival enough" to warrant keeping, and frankly

still feel this > way about the Gallery this year.  It still feels kind of
ad-hoc and temporal, nothing

that would deserve archive status.  The photos are just kinda thrown in

bins by their > photographer.  It's like having a bunch of boxes of
pictures.  Doesn't feel like "an

album of the convention".


Well. Thanks for your honest opinion. I'm glad you liked it.

Please explain to me how "an album of the convention" should look like?
Should there be a summary under each picture? Different layout? More
professional or user friendly access? I was trying to convince that gallery
is one of those "easy-to-do" projects and that Gallery Software is one of
the easiest on the market to maintain and use. If I knew that this project
wouldn't meet your expectations, wouldn't deserve an archive status and that
it would end up on the shelf few months after, honestly, I wouldn't have
done it. What's the purpose of gallery that it's only up for couple months
after convention? I had small review on AGA 2003 with few pictures and I
could give you a number of how many time that particular .html page was
accessed by visitors many months after convention.

Regards,
Jay Luto
www.greenstouch.com


-----Original Message-----
From: aga-mcm-bounces@thekrib.com [mailto:aga-mcm-bounces@thekrib.com] On
Behalf Of Erik Olson
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 9:01 PM
To: AGA Advisory Committee
Subject: RE: [AGA-mcm] Web Site

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Jay Luto wrote:


Erik,

Why wouldn't you. That's the whole point of Gallery. If I was a new member

I

would like to see pictures from 2000 and on if they were available. Unless

I

misunderstood the purpose of AGA gallery.


There was no AGA gallery until last month.  There was "some pictures from
last year's convention, arranged in a manner that people might enjoy for a
bit."  I never thought it was important to keep them around for years and
years, and to tell you the truth, today's e-mail was the first I've heard
of anyone actually looking for them.  It was my opinion that they take up
space and use up bandwidth with people sucking down the entire website,
that could otherwise be used by things like the aquascaping contest.

Never felt things were "archival enough" to warrant keeping, and frankly
still feel this way about the Gallery this year.  It still feels kind of
ad-hoc and temporal, nothing that would deserve archive status.  The
photos are just kinda thrown in bins by their photographer.  It's like
having a bunch of boxes of pictures.  Doesn't feel like "an album of the
convention".

I have my own personal archive of most of the previous years' originals,
and if folks think it's worthwhile, I can put them up.  The first year's
photos are also on the DVD.

  - Erik



Regards,
Jay Luto
www.greenstouch.com

-----Original Message-----
From: aga-mcm-bounces@thekrib.com [mailto:aga-mcm-bounces@thekrib.com] On
Behalf Of Erik Olson
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 5:46 PM
To: AGA Advisory Committee
Subject: Re: [AGA-mcm] Web Site

You mean 2003?  I pulled those off when we added 2004.  Is there a reason
we should keep the older pictures?

  - Erik

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Karen Randall wrote:


Hi Erik,

Roger Miller just mentioned over on APC that there is no longer a link on
the web site to the earlier convention photos.  Is this on purpose?

Karen


_______________________________________________
AGA-mcm mailing list
AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm









--
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com
_______________________________________________
AGA-mcm mailing list
AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm

[The Krib] [AGA] [Aquaria FAQ] [GSAS]