Credit for image should not cover the image

LegacyUser

James Cobban said: The copyright on most of the images made available on FamilySearch does not belong to Intellectual Reserve Inc and therefore it is necessary and appropriate that the copyright holder should be thanked for granting permission to FamilySearch to make those images available. However it would be nice if this thank you did not cover up part of the image display area. At present it is positioned over the center of the top portion of the image even if there is unused space immediately above that spot and the popup cannot be closed or dragged to a less intrusive position by the mouse. Even when I view images in a half-screen window there is enough unused space above the credit in the header bar between the paging controls and the print tool for the credit to be moved up. I do a lot of my work with two screens on my desktop so I frequently have the image window open in full-screen mode while I update my records on the other screen. In this case there is even more room to move the credit out of the way because there is nothing between it and the top of the browser window, but indeed the site just makes the credit popup *wider* so it takes up even more of the space for viewing the image. This forces me to reduce the zoom level of the image so it will fit below the bottom of the credit notice which causes added eyestrain for my presbyopia.

LegacyUser

Gary King said: Can you give us an example URL of an image that has this problem?

LegacyUser

James Cobban said: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...

LegacyUser

Brett said: James

In relation to the "Web" version of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" ...

Although there is no way to "Dismiss" that particular "Courtesy/Permission" 'Notice', like other such 'Notices' in "FamilySearch", at least, there is a "Less" link that allows that 'Notice' to be significantly reduced in size.

Personally, I do not see what there is so much to be concerned or complain about - I am using a 'Laptop' computer; and, the "Image" of that Document can be quite easily, read; and, resized (if necessary).

I do not use the "Mobile" Application version of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch", for working on individuals/persons; so, I cannot comment on such in relation to the "Mobile" Application.

Just my thoughts.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

James Cobban said: Your eyesight must be better than mine

LegacyUser

Brett said: James

No I do not have great eyesight.

Here is are images of that "Source" you supplied above.

Example 1 - when FIRST accessed with whole 'Notice'.



Example 2 - when the "Less" link on the 'Notice' is selected (where, that 'Notice' is still there; but, much smaller); and, where the 'Image' of the Document has enlarged, even without the "Image Index" (at the bottom) being minimised (which would give an even bigger picture) .



What is the problem/issue?
Nothing to do with eyesight!

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Jessie Hearle said: I frequently use an iPad to view historical records images & love the iOS Family Tree Mobile app...
For the link you provided, if you click download, the image opens full screen.
By opening another browser window, or in my workflow opening the app side by side, I can enlarge & scroll to view the pertinent record & compare or add new information.

LegacyUser

James Cobban said: Thank you. That is useful advice.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Has the stickiness of the "This image courtesy of..." note just changed?

Memory is, as always, fallible, but I'll swear that the Less / More toggle is new. And I really, really, don't remember the credit note being persistent. I thought that it faded after a while - maybe when one moved onto the next image or zoomed into a single image.

JamesCobban

This is still intrusive. In my original suggestion I agreed that it is essential to thank those agencies which permit FamilySearch to use their images. I just do not understand why there is no way for the user to dismiss the thanks or move it to a less intrusive spot. PLEASE!! I raised this issue over two years ago and it still is an irritation. The image is from https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-Y39R-ZKC

It is nice that you are courteous to these agencies. How about being courteous to your users?

Paul W

@JamesCobban

I assume it is the "agencies" who are insisting their records are displayed in this way. Why blame FamilySearch if the probable alternative (in this example) is "Archives of Ontario" withdrawing permission for these images to be published on the FS website?

Okay, it is intrusive, but it's not as if it is preventing any detail from being seen. Don't you usually have to zoom-in or move the image around, for a better view?