Flickr friendly URL’s Mar20 '06
Feedback
# (2 of 2): Matthom
10 hours, 33 minutes after the fact. (Mon 20 Mar 2006, 8:17 PM CST)
Oh yea, I agree that the URI’s are perfect... I was just wishing they’d extend that to the "sets."
But your point on "cool URI’s don’t change" makes sense, and clarifies it.
So yeah, it looks "unsightly," but it’s permanent, which is good.
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave feedback
is published and produced by Matt Thommes - an independent publishing enthusiast, mobile blogger, content creator, informative writer, web developer from Chicago.
Never one to conform, Matt intends to promote the effect the web has on our lives, in an effort to intensify, instruct, and clarify all that is happening around us.
There is one area of Flickr that I wish was a little bit better.
You are at the feedback permalink page for: Flickr friendly URL’s
# (1 of 2): Josh » joahua.com/blog
5 hours, 31 minutes after the fact. (Mon 20 Mar 2006, 3:15 PM CST)
I’d beg to differ. I think Flickr’s approach to URI structure is absolutely awesome. When you sign up for a friendly URI, it’s VERY clear that you can’t change it in the future. Tick. It has logical URIs without strange extensions (with the exception of the few remaining not-rewritten filename.gne, left over from their Game Never Ending days), and EVERYTHING is permanent. Absolutely brilliant.
So if this (correct) approach to URIs were to carry over to friendly photoset names, more problems arise. What if you want to change the title of your Photoset? That can’t be reflected in the URI, because cool URIs don’t change. Or, if it is to be reflected, the old title has to STAY and (probably can’t) be used by others, if there’s a global context in which that set can be accessed (i.e. not username/sets/setname, but group/sets/setname or /sets/setname).
I agree it’s pretty unsightly at present, but making it better presents an interesting design challenge to which I don’t think there’s any easy answer.