Drag linked image downloads the image
 

It's annoying that if you drag an image from an OW window to the desktop, and that image has a hyperlink, you get an internet shortcut on your desktop, not the image. This is unlike every other browser I've used.

I know this behavior can be avoided by shift-dragging, but I would venture a guess that most users, if they are going to drag an image to their desktop, want to download the image. I request that this become the default, and shift-drag would download the URL shortcut, since this is less frequent.

If reversing the behavior is not in the cards, I request that it become a preference, even a "hidden" one.

Why not just use the contextual menu and move your mouse less (assuming you have a mouse)?: Image > Download Page to [downloads folder]

Also, shift-dragging images with links (like the OMNI icon above) doesn't download the image for me but gives me a link to the image rather than the link the image points to.

[QUOTE=afb]Why not just use the contextual menu and move your mouse less (assuming you have a mouse)?: Image > Download Page to [downloads folder][/QUOTE]

For me, I don't want to download it. I want to drag into the Photoshop icon. (And I just noticed shift-dragging doesn't let me do that.)

That said, there's a fine line between dragging a text link and an image link. It's very difficult for most people to tell the difference sometimes. People who are dragging links are probably less familiar with page construction than people who drag images.

I didn't know about the shift-drag. I guess that's a bug then.

I hadn't thought of dragging images to Photoshop. Dragging an image from Camino to the PS icon doesn't do anything, but it does what you describe in Safari. Dragging from both though onto an open PS document works as expected. It also works from OW with a shift-drag.

(The Safari drag to the PS icon works because it opens the cached image on disk.)

The incorrect shift-drag was brought up in a thread on the early sneaky peeks. Is it not in the known issues list? Answering myself - yes it is.

[QUOTE=JKT]The incorrect shift-drag was brought up in a thread on the early sneaky peeks. Is it not in the known issues list? Answering myself - yes it is.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but "unexpected results" doesn't give much of a definition. Plus I wasn't reporting it as a but ;)

Well, I still want to be able to download an image to my desktop by dragging it there. It's very mac-like behavior, and it's otherwise universally supported.

The context menu takes too long to use, and requires either a multi-button mouse or a key-press. Drag to desktop is one click (and drag).

Plus I have my downloads folder set to one place, but I don't want to put the image there.

PLEASE PLEASE fix this. So much in OW is so mac-like and intuitive, and this is a glaring error, IMO.

[QUOTE=Handycam]I know this behavior can be avoided by shift-dragging, but I would venture a guess that most users, if they are going to drag an image to their desktop, want to download the image. I request that this become the default, and shift-drag would download the URL shortcut, since this is less frequent.

If reversing the behavior is not in the cards, I request that it become a preference, even a "hidden" one.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely agree. :) It follows the Safari behaviour and adds the OmniWeb spin; Shift-dragging to get a URL in another app, or Web Location file in the Finder.

There's real value in being able to drag the link, but IMHO the most 'intuitive' behaviour would be, as Handycam says, the image drag by default.
[QUOTE=afb](The Safari drag to the PS icon works because it opens the cached image on disk.)[/QUOTE]
...and it's a handy feature, indeed! :)

I'd also like to see OmniWeb doing the same, if possible.

So no one else things it would be confusing for most users by having links that sometimes drag and images that sometimes drag, when using the same action? I really don't think most people can tell the difference between a text link and an image link.

[QUOTE=Forrest]So no one else things it would be confusing for most users by having links that sometimes drag and images that sometimes drag, when using the same action?[/QUOTE]
You're right, it is, and so too could be dragging some images successfully, and others not.

[QUOTE=Forrest]I really don't think most people can tell the difference between a text link and an image link.[/QUOTE]
So I guess the question comes down to what would most people expect to happen in this situation? What do people do more of, dragging images, or dragging links? I'm not sure, but I tend to think 'images', in this context at least.

As an aside, while not perfect, consider that you can follow a link, and drag the URL from the title bar, or the location field.

...and of course, conversely you can control-click on the image to save it... stalemate perhaps? ;)

I would say stalemate except that my guess is users who drag images are more web-savvy than users who drag links. Because of this, it make sense to have the features less savvy users use be more intuitive.

I should add, I often drag images and never drag links. I also only recently learned the shift-drag option.

[QUOTE=marc]There's real value in being able to drag the link, but IMHO the most 'intuitive' behaviour would be, as Handycam says, the image drag by default. [/QUOTE]

Yes, please.

[QUOTE=forrest]So no one else things it would be confusing for most users by having links that sometimes drag and images that sometimes drag, when using the same action?[/QUOTE]

No. The intended action of dragging a link to the desktop would be [B]to save that link[/b]. The intended action of dragging an image to the desktop would be [b]to save the image[/b]. So the action is indeed the same. You're saving what you dragged.

And it could be a preference, as in:

[code]
Dragging a linked image...

() Saves the image

() Saves the link on the image

Hold shift to temporarily toggle this setting.
[/code]

Why is this so contentious? Every other browser allows this.

[QUOTE=Forrest]I would say stalemate except that my guess is users who drag images are more web-savvy than users who drag links. Because of this, it make sense to have the features less savvy users use be more intuitive.[/QUOTE]
I don't mean to harp on it, I'm just not sure... you may be right of course I just think I've observed the reverse (but not a conclusive sample!)
[QUOTE=Forrest]I should add, I often drag images and never drag links. I also only recently learned the shift-drag option.[/QUOTE]
I don't find myself dragging links a huge amount, I tend to use the site icon of a page I've read (having confirmed interest), rather than dragging a link (anticipating interest.)

You don't find users wanting to 'pinch' a cute image, animation whatever, only to be (sometimes) hampered by js, flash, layers etc.? I ask as I'm genuinely curious if I'm guessing wrongly! :)

[QUOTE=marc]You don't find users wanting to 'pinch' a cute image, animation whatever, only to be (sometimes) hampered by js, flash, layers etc.? I ask as I'm genuinely curious if I'm guessing wrongly! :)[/QUOTE]

I work at an ad agency. Often we need to grab an image from a site like fotosearch.com to use in a comp. Or we open local files that are image catalogs. Or we simply see an image (or harvest several) we want to show someone later.

It's very intuitive to drag the desired image to the desktop or to a folder, or even to Photoshop.

[QUOTE=Handycam]No. The intended action of dragging a link to the desktop would be [B]to save that link[/b]. The intended action of dragging an image to the desktop would be [b]to save the image[/b]. So the action is indeed the same. You're saving what you dragged. [/quote]

Obviously I was referring to images that are linked. :rolleyes:

And, no, not every other browser works the way you describe. Additionally, the fact that most other browsers do shouldn't be a reason why Omni should change. With that logic, none of us should be using Macs.

[quote]You don't find users wanting to 'pinch' a cute image, animation whatever, only to be (sometimes) hampered by js, flash, layers etc.? I ask as I'm genuinely curious if I'm guessing wrongly! [/quote]

Very rarely. But I also don't know many people who drag links much.

Well, how about the suggestion of making it a preference, so the user can decide?

If you think my behavior is only for advanced users, then I'd settle for it being a "hidden" pref, so only "power" users would muck with it.

There is a lot of history in the way OmniWeb drags links and images.

Originally (back in 1994 when we invented link dragging) we had URL icons (zaps) next to links to allow you to drag the URL explicitly. I think the current implementation goes back to when we made grabbing text with a url grab the URL--no one seems to complain (anymore) that you can't just select the text inside a URL, it always grabs the link--why is that any different than grabbing an image that is a link? (Your cursor lets you know right away whether you are going to get a link or an image).

[QUOTE=Len Case]There is a lot of history in the way OmniWeb drags links and images.

Originally (back in 1994 when we invented link dragging) we had URL icons (zaps) next to links to allow you to drag the URL explicitly.[/QUOTE]
I remember the 'zaps', they were very distinctive. :)

Dare I complicate things and throw out the thought that when hovering over an image with a link, that the venerable 'zap' icon could appear 'near' the image, and grabbing that icon would drag the link, whereas just grabbing the image would act like an image without a link?

Perhaps it complicates things, but it might work, in practice, broadly similar to the OW-custom tooltips on tabs.

[QUOTE=Len Case]I think the current implementation goes back to when we made grabbing text with a url grab the URL--no one seems to complain (anymore) that you can't just select the text inside a URL, it always grabs the link--why is that any different than grabbing an image that is a link? (Your cursor lets you know right away whether you are going to get a link or an image).[/QUOTE]
Yes, it tells you, but we're 'arguing' over what should be the default behaviour, and the Shift-toggle. :)

IMHO this also links to [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=314"]URL of downloaded file in Spotlight comments?[/URL] -- for those of us image-draggers the ideal would be the ablity to drag images off a page and have the URL of the image (if not the containing page) included in the file's Spotlight Comments field, to allow you to retrace your steps.

Perhaps this is more oriented to designer-types, I'm always grabbing interesting designs, screenshots, or doing research on something or other, and often amongst this detritus there's a gem that I want to follow up later.

[QUOTE=Len Case]Originally (back in 1994 when we invented link dragging) we had URL icons (zaps) next to links to allow you to drag the URL explicitly. I think the current implementation goes back to when we made grabbing text with a url grab the URL--no one seems to complain (anymore) that you can't just select the text inside a URL, it always grabs the link--why is that any different than grabbing an image that is a link? (Your cursor lets you know right away whether you are going to get a link or an image).[/QUOTE]

Because, unfortunately, many sites add a link to an image that wasn't intended as a link. This is relatively new.

In the earlier days you describe, and image with a link was clearly intended as a way to get to somewhere. It was likely a button or navigational element, and you indeed would prefer to save its link -- who wants the button?

But now, let's say I go to a site like [URL="http://the superficial.com"]The Superficial[/URL] (only one that came to mind :o ). You read the first story about Jessica Simpson :o :o and click one of the image links to [URL="http://www.thesuperficial.com/image.php?path=/images/2006/05/jsimpson_arrives_recording_studio2.jpg"]see a larger picture[/URL]. You like the larger picture and want to save it to your desktop to show a buddy. Drag it to the desktop... WHOOPS it has a damn link to the home page.

You see? You guys are right that with logically-constructed sites, an image like this one -- which is really pure content -- should not have a link, and dragging it should net you the image. But it DOES have a link, as do most such images these day, and now the old behavior is not in step.

I don't care what the default behavior is -- I want to be able to CHANGE the default behavior to suit the sites I personally surf.

[QUOTE=Handycam]I don't care what the default behavior is -- I want to be able to CHANGE the default behavior to suit the sites I personally surf.[/QUOTE]

You can, hold down shift ;)

[QUOTE=Forrest]You can, hold down shift ;)[/QUOTE]

That's not changing, thats a temporary toggle. And it doesn't work all the time. Try it on the photo I use in my example.

That being said, I humbly request that a preference be added somewhere -- even via the terminal -- to reverse the current behavior so that dragging an image saves the image and shift-drag drags the link on the image.

I use the former more often than the latter, so it would be nice if I could configure my software to work the way I need it to :)

[QUOTE=Handycam]Try it on the photo I use in my example.[/QUOTE]

Worked for me on that example.

I don't get it. Even with the shift key down, I get a Webloc.

Try [url]http://www.thesuperficial.com/image.php?path=/images/2006/05/ccrawford_cavalli_vodka5.jpg[/url]

Same thing for me here...

[QUOTE=Handycam]I don't get it. Even with the shift key down, I get a Webloc.

Try [url]http://www.thesuperficial.com/image.php?path=/images/2006/05/ccrawford_cavalli_vodka5.jpg[/url]

Same thing for me here...[/QUOTE]

You get [i]different[/i] links: holding down shift, you get the link to the pic; not holding down shift, you get the link the pic points to.

I see, sorry. But how to drag the IMAGE itself?

You're right; we can't do that. I was just pointing out that the shift key does change the behavior.

Just a few things I would like to note:
- The current release notes state a known issue is "Shift-Drag linked images producing unexpected result"
- The way this should work has been defined
- The OG has stated several times that they are not looking to add/change features in 5.5 that aren't a direct result of the switch to webkit.

Okey dokey, then

It boggles the mind that this is even worth discussing. Of COURSE dragging an image should [I]drag the image[/I]. Of COURSE. What the hell?

[QUOTE=MarsViolet@mac.com]It boggles the mind that this is even worth discussing. Of COURSE dragging an image should [I]drag the image[/I]. Of COURSE. What the hell?[/QUOTE]

Because sometimes an image is also a link. So if dragging a link is dragging a link, then what do you do if it's a linked image?

Since this has been re-activated:

Current behavior, as I understand it:

1. drag a link (text) to desktop, get a webloc

2. drag an image with no link to desktop, get the image

3. drag an image WITH a hyperlink applied to desktop, get a webloc

4. SHIFT-drag an image with a link to desktop, get the image


While I have gotten used to holding down the shift key to drag an image with a link on it (when I want the image on my desktop, not a link) I still would LOVE TO SEE a preference to toggle 3 and 4 above.

I personally would like to drag an image to my desktop and always get an image. Not a link. For me, 99% of the time I'm trying to drag an interesting image to the desktop, not save a link.

A good example? Let's say I go to a site which offers desktop wallpaper. The way they set it up is that clicking a thumbnail pops a javascript window with the full-size image. Further trying to be "helpful" they have put a javascript link on the large image that closes the window for me. So now, if I drag the wallpaper to my desktop, I get a "javascript:" webloc. Why would I want that?

Now, since many people prefer the current behavior, and perhaps once in a while I'd prefer to switch back to the current behavior myself, I say add it as a preference, which toggles the behavior. Even as a hidden "advanced user" pref.

I have to say my thoughts on this were identical to MarsViolet. I realize you guys have a rich history (ala the NeXT days), and ways you have done things in the past are tied to that, but this is an area where the past behavior of the app is not as relevant (IMO) as the way people expect things to work.