I hate flickr. Don't get me wrong - I think what they're doing is great; I just think their interface sucks. And for me, the interface is like 80% of the experience there. It's slow, it gets in the way, and it doesn't let me read or see what I want to in a short amount of time. Forward/Back buttons are counterintuitive, and there's just too much going on on each page.
Is there some component of flickr I'm missing? Like, the slideshow interface, which pre-loads all the photos at once, is nice, but it doesn't show any of the photo captions! That defeats the purpose on most albums.
Travis, being the UI guru that you are, I am curious of your opinion on the subject...
I'm not a fan either. I was directed there by a random link, and stumbled across that great gallery by chance. I have roughly the same feelings about the gallery as you do. It really gets in the way.
They do have one thing going for them—they'll host nice, high-res photos (I've seen 6 MP pictures; maybe they support higher), unlike many sites that top out at like 600x450.
Like I said, I really like what they're doing (lots of storage space for high-res photos, like you mentioned), but I think there is a better way for them to do it.
3 comments:
I hate flickr. Don't get me wrong - I think what they're doing is great; I just think their interface sucks. And for me, the interface is like 80% of the experience there. It's slow, it gets in the way, and it doesn't let me read or see what I want to in a short amount of time. Forward/Back buttons are counterintuitive, and there's just too much going on on each page.
Is there some component of flickr I'm missing? Like, the slideshow interface, which pre-loads all the photos at once, is nice, but it doesn't show any of the photo captions! That defeats the purpose on most albums.
Travis, being the UI guru that you are, I am curious of your opinion on the subject...
I'm not a fan either. I was directed there by a random link, and stumbled across that great gallery by chance. I have roughly the same feelings about the gallery as you do. It really gets in the way.
They do have one thing going for them—they'll host nice, high-res photos (I've seen 6 MP pictures; maybe they support higher), unlike many sites that top out at like 600x450.
Thanks. I'm glad to know I am not alone.
Like I said, I really like what they're doing (lots of storage space for high-res photos, like you mentioned), but I think there is a better way for them to do it.
Post a Comment