Template talk:Multimedia

From Theopedia

What happened to the headphones? JordanBarrett (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2006 (EST)

Took them out until I can fix the IE bug. -Aaronshaf 23:11, 5 February 2006 (EST)

Multimedia template should be moved

I think personally that this multimedia template should be moved over to the right side of the screen. What do you guys think? My reasoning is that just from a look and feel perspective, it takes up too much space at the top... It kind of gets annoying and feels in the way. --Ymmotrojam 00:02, 6 February 2006 (EST)

That would work if the selection is small, but on pages where the list of audio resources is long it of course wouldn't work. Thoughts? -Aaronshaf 00:05, 6 February 2006 (EST)

This is just a personal opinion, but the large block of multimedia links at the top of an article is distracting, and as Tom says, somewhat annoying. I understand Aaron's desire to emphasize the availability of multimedia, but it works against those who first would like to see more than one sentence of an article without having to filter out Multimedia blocks, TOCs and templates. It also disrupts the printed version for those who desire such. The current right-side templates (like for theologians or books of the Bible) are in a prominent spot but out of the way. I suggest some type of Right-margin Hot Link banner/button that merely says "Multimedia Links" and put the list links at the bottom of the article. Gomarus 11:10, 6 February 2006 (EST)

I never did think of the printing thing. But I think there are some good points that with the multimedia plus the TOC, the actual content of the article is broken up in ways that may be frustrating to the reader. Personally, I'm not sure how to put the audio on the right and make it look good. Maybe we can do some trial runs with this. JordanBarrett (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2006 (EST)

I don't think it'd work on the right. I suppose we could try it out at the bottom. :) -Aaronshaf 12:13, 6 February 2006 (EST)

I think it would work, but it would have to be shaped differently... --Ymmotrojam 13:07, 6 February 2006 (EST)

If y'all do a search with the keyword "multimedia" you should see a lot of articles that need converting to the new multimedia template format. Thanks bros. -Aaronshaf 19:15, 6 February 2006 (EST)

I have to admit - the articles sorta look weird having the audio at the bottom. JordanBarrett (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2006 (EST)

Yeah, I agree. I vote to put them back up top. If a page is too crowded, I'd rather have the multimedia box than the right-side infoboxes (if I had to choose one). Be reminded that we're gearing the site toward the laymen, toward those who are not armchair theologians. And having immediate access to multimedia is very helpful for those folks. -Aaronshaf 21:30, 6 February 2006 (EST)

Well, if the template contained a == Blah Blah == then it would appear in the TOC. Then it could be at the bottom of the page with the external links and such, and still be it instantly accessible. The multimedia are almost always external anyway, so I think this is most appropriate. Aquatiki 12:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you've made it onto Theopedia, Robert! While the consensus seems to be on leaving it as-is, I totally agree with you.[1] A level-three header within External links would probably work best. --J. J. 14:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm joining this fray a little late in the game, but as a new(er) user, I'd like to throw my two cents in about the media box. I agree with the point about making it accessible, but it has annoyed me (particularly in articles with lots of media) to have to scroll down to see the meat of the content. I appreciate the work JordanBarrett did in creating a separate audio page for Emerging Church. What if the template included a simple box on the right hand side of the article (using the fancy headphone graphic...) that directs users to the Media page for any given article (if it has any)? HokieRNB 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm about 60/40 on this. 60% of me wants to keep it where it is, 40% sees what you (and Jim, who says the same) is saying. The one to convince is aaronshaf. He's fully convinced that most people would actually rather listen/watch multimedia than read a long article, thus why it's at the top and stands out. I do like your idea though. Aaron? JordanBarrett (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me throw my $0.02 in to try to sway him as well. Aren't all the multimedi links outside content? I think we can all see how well the Emerging Church adaption worked, and there are definitely folks who think the full-width graphic is an impediment. People who want multimedia content will get an entire page of it, and those who like to read will scroll happier. Up with infoboxes, down with mid-page banners! Aquatiki 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I owe everyone more of a defense for the practice, but for now let me add a "drive-by" comment and get back to work. Prioritizing multimedia content is one of the founding principles of Theopedia, because, like Jordan said, I think people are more likely to watch video and listen to audio than read the larger part of the article. Putting the multimedia box after the article's abstract (which, granted, should not be distractingly large) is a way that I see we can serve people and maximally influence them with good theology. Grace and peace. -Aaronshaf 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, Aaron; I didn't realize that this was a founding principle. Personally, I'd rather read through the article than listen/watch stuff. People want things quickly when they're on the Internet; audio/video is only really used when people have a lot of time to relax and get more in-depth info. We should have a poll and see who clicks on audio/video vs. reading the article... --J. J. 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My personal experience has proven Aaron's hypothesis. I used to work at a Christian Credit Union in CA and shared Theopedia with a lot of my co-workers. I also shared it with Talbot students (a Seminary) as a resource. Many of them were excited to find a collection of audio on a topic they were interested in. Yeah, they liked our content. But they wanted to listen to profs/scholars, debates, online classes, etc... I was suprised. A last example, I have been told more than once that our article on the New Perspective on Paul has good content, but that they've never found such a good collection of audio on the topic. I believe this is why it's in our top 5 most popular articles. JordanBarrett (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great that y'all have found a good collection of links, but as people accused of having Paper Pope, I think we need to continue the Reformation tradition of doing away with images! The Jesus film is a great thing (in it's own way), but I have heard many people say "If only there had been movies made in Jesus day, then the Gospel could've really taken off. At last we have the correct tool to evangelize!" AAGH!! The reason the Bible describes the crucifiction is such artless words and not in Mel Gibson's movie is because reading words forces us to think and not passively receive whatever dances before our eyeballs. ... Whoa. I went into a tyrade, didn't I?! (exhale). OK, I think what I'm trying to say is that it's great that we have a collection of links to cool content that isn't linked from one spot anywhere else on the web, but are we not primarily concerned with developing our own content? ... OK, start calling me a Metapedian and over-philosophizer: I'm used to it. >-) Aquatiki 07:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good comments. I'm glad people aren't holding back and are continueing to put their views out there. I see what you're saying, and I'll think on it. ;) In reply to the last question, we are primarily concerned here with developing our own content. I do see, however, our multimedia as more than just allowing people to not think. For example, I download the audio here and there and take it with me to listen to later when I don't have internet access or can't carry a giant book with me to read. I like our conent - for example, I like what I've started on the New Testament use of the Old Testament - it's hard to find more simplified articles on that topic - but it can't compare to D.A. Caron's lectures that are linked on that article, especially if you want more advanced information. Furthermore, Theopedia is getting better at providing "resources", or in a sense, "recommended reading". I agree with you that a comment about multimedia having really helped in Jesus' time is bogus. But perhaps we can change that view all-the-while allowing multimedia to exist here. Again, I'm going to think on this. If someone can come up with a better way than sticking it at the bottom, I may become convinced. I thought about the idea of linking to it from the right side of the page, and unless one person wants to do that to all of the hundred of articles we have multimedia on, I'm not up for using my time that way (since it's limited). JordanBarrett (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Five people tackling a half dozen edits a day could get it done in a month. I'm not suggesting this is proof-positive that switching is the best direction, but I think the decision needs to be about what serves the site and its users best and not how much work it takes to get it done. That's the power of a wiki... no one is working alone on this. HokieRNB 17:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to anyone if this sounds prideful or hurts feelings, but when it comes to big projects like that, I feel I am usually (not always) alone in doing the mind-numbing work. Hence, I didn't want to say "yes" when I half-expect to do it myself. I'm not saying no one helps out around here, but I've experienced things like this in the past. One example contrary to this is everyone helping out with the funny characters. Anyways, if everyone is willing to help out, then yes, that's more of a possiblity. Hope that provides some clarity to the fact that I do want what's best for the users. JordanBarrett (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)