Flickr's latest interface ... win or lose?

[citizen99]

I don't like the way functionality is changed, even where a desired result can be achieved in a different way it seems less user-friendly to me.
The great advantage of Flickr for me is that it is free for up to a large amount of storage, and has a large 'footfall' of people with very diverse interests. But it would be nice if Yahoo would at least make some explanatory announcement, like, say, a Release Note, when implementing major changes to the interface. (If they have in fact done that somewhere, it hasn't caught my eye.)

It may be possible to find some mitigation if you are working at a 'classic' desktop PC (rather than a tablet or smartphone) and have the time and inclination to drill-down various browser download sites for older browser versions which may run on whatever is your OS.
For example yesterday I was running Windows XP, on which Safari 5.1.7 rendered in the older way, and
Hans Kerensky has shown the retro-emulation mode of Internet Explorer 10 or 11.

 

[JoeV]

Well, I've been following this latest Flickr kerfluffle and I just don't get it. It looks the same to me, same functionality, buttons are in the same place and work the same way. I don't (and haven't) seen any change and thus don't see what all the fuss is about. This is from viewing Flickr both on my iPad2 using the latest version of iOS7 and Safari, and a Windows 7 laptop using IE. and I'm logged into Flickr and am a paying member. I wonder if all the people who are having issues are using the "free" version?

~Joe

 

[mdarnton]

I think the people at Flickr must be trying hard to find new ways to make pictures look bad. There's a reason that art in museums is displayed in mattes, with space around them, and it's notable that Flickr over the last couple of changes has been working hard to smash photos together and eliminate the space around them in other ways. The larger that screens get, the more intent they are on using all of the new territory, when logically it should be the opposite.

One kind of has to conclude they hate art and hate photography in particular over there. If they didn't they'd leave us at least one setting/option to display photos properly. Interface improvement can't compensate for ugly display, IMO.

Joe--I pay. What happened finally last week was that they forced us all over into a display option that previously you could opt out of, for single photo display: photo smashed against the three sides of the screen on the left, and masses of distracting text on the right. There's still an option to view the photo alone but it maximizes the view as much as possible, meaning at least two sides are flush. Gone is any option that lets the image hang alone in a field of black.

 

[Godfrey]

I think the people at Flickr must be trying hard to find new ways to make pictures look bad. There's a reason that art in museums is displayed in mattes, with space around them, and it's notable that Flickr over the last couple of changes has been working hard to smash photos together and eliminate the space around them in other ways. The larger that screens get, the more intent they are on using all of the new territory, when logically it should be the opposite.

One kind of has to conclude they hate art and hate photography in particular over there. If they didn't they'd leave us at least one setting/option to display photos properly. Interface improvement can't compensate for ugly display, IMO.

Joe--I pay. What happened finally last week was that they forced us all over into a display option that previously you could opt out of, for single photo display: photo smashed against the three sides of the screen on the left, and masses of distracting text on the right. There's still an option to view the photo alone but it maximizes the view as much as possible, meaning at least two sides are flush. Gone is any option that lets the image hang alone in a field of black.

I think that depends on the size of your screen and the size of the image uploaded to flickr. My uploaded photos now are usually fitting within a box 1200x1200 pixels in size at max. On my 27" display, the new view mode allows a view like this one:

I find that pretty nice. The problem is when you post stuff at enormous resolutions or have a smallish screen, their algorithm shows a scaling with no mat space around the image. Take this (likely) full-resolution Olympus E-M5 exposure from Adam Maas:

It's bigger than can be displayed at 1:1 resolution on my 27" monitor ... in the same window as the previous photo, it's scaled to just fit.

The result is just as always: consider the display medium and its conventions, pick your display image sizing and formatting to suit for best results.

G

 

[css9450]

like new one better than previous. for what it costs (= nothing), very good value. thank u Flickr

Ah yes, the "don't complain about free software!" argument.

Most of us pay (or used to pay) $24 a year for a "Pro" membership. That ain't free.

I would gladly pay if there was a way to go back to the pre-May 2013 version. This however - no way.

 

[Godfrey]

Ah yes, the "don't complain about free software!" argument.

Most of us pay (or used to pay) $24 a year for a "Pro" membership. That ain't free.

I would gladly pay if there was a way to go back to the pre-May 2013 version. This however - no way.

LOL! Lessee: $24/year = six+ cents a day. That's really hitting you where it hurts, isn't it? How much did your last lens cost? ];-)

G

 

[css9450]

LOL! Lessee: $24/year = six+ cents a day. That's really hitting you where it hurts, isn't it? How much did your last lens cost? ];-)

That's not the point.

I'm not complaining about a free service, like Google or Facebook or Youtube, I'm complaining about the one I chose to pay for. Inexpensive or otherwise.

 

[f16sunshine]

Video is not playing for me. Anyone had success playing a clip with the new console style?
The official flickr app is still playing video just fine.

 

[emjo]

It sux! I want the old flickr back!

 

[Godfrey]

That's not the point.

I'm not complaining about a free service, like Google or Facebook or Youtube, I'm complaining about the one I chose to pay for. Inexpensive or otherwise.

None of these services are actually free. Someone's paying for them, one way or another. Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc, get their money from advertisers. Flicker is advertisement free and charge you a tiny amount of money for the pleasure if and only if you choose to pay it because you want to use more of their data storage and display.

I am happy to pay my $0.06 per day for the storage and image hosting service. What they do about playing with displays ... well, they've done some things well and other things pretty funkily. I don't find the current version of their display all that bad. I spent some time looking at it this morning and found it was pretty easy to use and get around.

G

 

[farlymac]

Video is not playing for me. Anyone had success playing a clip with the new console style?
The official flickr app is still playing video just fine.

Tried Video today, and it's a No-Go. Also, the titles are no longer part of the BB Code, so you have to copy and paste those too for posting elsewhere.

PF

 

[charjohncarter]

I don't adapt well to change. So, I'm not crazy about it.

 

[css9450]

I don't adapt well to change. So, I'm not crazy about it.

Don't complain. It only costs 6 cents a day more than Google or Youtube.

 

[rodt16s]

With each forced change it seems I'm using Flickr less... guess for me they failed to improve the experience.

 

[bwcolor]

I adapt. It works.

 

[Sparrow]

I adapt. It's ugly

 

[Paddy C]

I've been using the "new" look since it was made available. There are a few things I don't like but they are small and overall I think they've done great work and made big improvements.

 

[Sparrow]

... well, it wasn't "made available" was it? ... it was enforced

 

[judsonzhao]

if they haven't figure out how to deal with this, at least offer the chance to opt out plz

 

[stevencrichton]

As a long term user, at first as they drip fed in some of the interface I wasn't too enamoured with it, but like everything else it does grow on you.

As a web developer myself I can see what they are trying to achieve and why they need to do it too. Most of the interface in modern browsers previously was very unstable especially on touch devices. So this really was required to hopefully pull the service out of slow marching to it's death.

I find on a lot of projects I've been on, notably as the lead in the tate.org redevelopment, that you either start with a clean slate or you are left with a lot of legacy code that stalls new features. With that we basically had to as with flickr wipe the slate clean so we could future proof the site.

As I said before the modern devices outline a lot of the functionality. The new flickr on the microsoft surface is stunning now they have allowances for touch. Also the heads up information panels form follows applications. In most cases 99% of the viewers don't care too much for the tags or the groups. They will come and search for engaging images and the new design with fullscreen browsing delivers that experience perfecty.

Overall though the biggest feature is 1TB of free data.. Install AdBlock in chrome and you never see the ads... so that issue is negated. Actually running an ad block generally makes the web a lot more blissful as the pages are less compromised by "BUY BUY BUY" plastered over pages.

I suppose it's like most software. They have to innovate to survive, not everyone will like it at first, the adobe product line is a good example.. the outrage in some quarters at Photoshop going to a dark interface was unbelievable. Although for a free very specific service. I'm more than happy to live with it. Even more so that the code connectors for my applications with flickr are the best out there. The fact I can write a page like this personal test here in less than a day for a client is simply outstanding! I think for the upcoming commonwealth games I took 3 days flat to fully integrate Flickr into the site.