Allow us to specify number of thumbnail columns

[omonra21]

in the smugmug viewing style. For example I just asked my wife for feedback on the site and this is what her sony laptop (they have wide screens) showed. The thumbnails are taking up most of the page. She thought it looks ridiculous :( and was the very first thing she asked to change.

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/502252987_HBbFJ-XL.jpg

I don't care if it will be allowed via CSS (maybe making a class called thumbnails and specifying its maximum width) or just a toggle on the settings page (ie maximum number of columns=3 / % area devoted to thumbnails = 25%).
I just think we should have more control over how the page looks given the amount of customization already allowed.

Thank you very much,

--Vic

[W.W. Webster]

I thought this looked strange, so displayed the same page across the full width of my 30" display - but didn't get the same result as you! :scratch

http://rosscollins.smugmug.com/photos/502296855_ZkMfz-X3.jpg

[Andy]

in the smugmug viewing style. For example I just asked my wife for feedback on the site and this is what her sony laptop (they have wide screens) showed. The thumbnails are taking up most of the page. She thought it looks ridiculous :( and was the very first thing she asked to change.

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/502252987_HBbFJ-XL.jpg

I don't care if it will be allowed via CSS (maybe making a class called thumbnails and specifying its maximum width) or just a toggle on the settings page (ie maximum number of columns=3 / % area devoted to thumbnails = 25%).
I just think we should have more control over how the page looks given the amount of customization already allowed.

Thank you very much,

--Vic

Vic: see "MORE CONTROL FOR HOW STRETCHY PAGES STRETCH"
here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=66912

[omonra21]

WW Webster - apparently her resolution is 1366x768. So I guess it's a function of how wide vs tall a screen is. That said, I still disagree with the way it comes up on your screen - 5 columns of thumbs and about 35-40% of screen real estate. (I'd think it should be less - but that's just my view of course)

Andy - thank you for the link but I am not sure if there is a tip that would address my query. Don't think SM.SmugMug.config.alterScreenHeight woul do it, would it?

[jfriend]

WW Webster - apparently her resolution is 1366x768. So I guess it's a function of how wide vs tall a screen is. That said, I still disagree with the way it comes up on your screen - 5 columns of thumbs and about 35-40% of screen real estate. (I'd think it should be less - but that's just my view of course)

Andy - thank you for the link but I am not sure if there is a tip that would address my query. Don't think SM.SmugMug.config.alterScreenHeight woul do it, would it? The issue is that Smugmug looks at the height and width of your screen and finds a standard image size (S, M, L, XL, X2, X3) that will fit on your screen (it looks at both vertical and horizontal oriented images since the algorithm doesn't know what is in your gallery or what you will add to the gallery). It then allocates that space in the view for the main image and fills in the rest with thumbs.

On your wife's computer, the screen is so short that only an fairly small main image will fit vertically (without scrolling). So, that's what it picks and then fills in the rest with thumbs. The only other options are to let the main image be larger than the screen (in which case a viewer would have to scroll to see it all) or to keep it the size it is and not fill in the rest with thumbs. Neither seems desirable to me.

Things you wife can do to optimize this are to make the viewable area inside the browser window as large as possible (maximize the browser window to full height, close the Find bar at the bottom, turn off extra browser toolbars, etc...

Things you can do in your site design. Minimize the height of your header (it has some dead space in it now). Get rid of extra space between navbar and the breadcrumb.

[omonra21]

The issue is that Smugmug looks at the height and width of your screen and finds a standard image size (S, M, L, XL, X2, X3) that will fit on your screen (it looks at both vertical and horizontal oriented images since the algorithm doesn't know what is in your gallery or what you will add to the gallery). It then allocates that space in the view for the main image and fills in the rest with thumbs.

On your wife's computer, the screen is so short that only an fairly small main image will fit vertically (without scrolling). So, that's what it picks and then fills in the rest with thumbs.

Things you can do in your site design. Minimize the height of your header (it has some dead space in it now). Get rid of extra space between navbar and the breadcrumb.

Thank you for the explanation. I have indeed sought to optimize the dead space on the screen (but actually for another purpose - wanted the homepage to fit inside the browser on 1024x768 without showing scroll bars :) What do you think now of it?

Now - I have a philosophical disagreement with a statement you made that I highlited in bold. I don't think that just because there is space it should all be filled with thumbnails. Being an engineer by training myself, I can see the practical appeal of that decision - let's use ALL the available space, fill up the truck!
But from a design perspective (ie what looks good / is practical) it's not necessarily optimal. Just because there is space doesn't mean I want to clutter it up. I would actually prefer to set a number of columns (or width) devoted to thumbs. If there is empty space between them and the photo - that's fine. When you go to a museum or art gallery - they don't stack pictures up to make use of all available wall space, do they?
I fully understand that you were offering advice given the current specs and appreciate that, so my elaboration of the earlier point is only meant to explain why I think we should be given that option. After playing around with CSS for a few days, it seems that creating a class thumbnails, so that we could control its relative width on the screen would be easiest. (But that's just an idea :)

[jfriend]

Thank you for the explanation. I have indeed sought to optimize the dead space on the screen (but actually for another purpose - wanted the homepage to fit inside the browser on 1024x768 without showing scroll bars :) What do you think now of it?

Now - I have a philosophical disagreement with a statement you made that I highlited in bold. I don't think that just because there is space it should all be filled with thumbnails. Being an engineer by training myself, I can see the practical appeal of that decision - let's use ALL the available space, fill up the truck!
But from a design perspective (ie what looks good / is practical) it's not necessarily optimal. Just because there is space doesn't mean I want to clutter it up. I would actually prefer to set a number of columns (or width) devoted to thumbs. If there is empty space between them and the photo - that's fine. When you go to a museum or art gallery - they don't stack pictures up to make use of all available wall space, do they?
I fully understand that you were offering advice given the current specs and appreciate that, so my elaboration of the earlier point is only meant to explain why I think we should be given that option. After playing around with CSS for a few days, it seems that creating a class thumbnails, so that we could control its relative width on the screen would be easiest. (But that's just an idea :)I'm explaining how it works today. I have a personal opinion that once you've picked the largest main image that will fit, you might as well offer as many thumbs as possible because that reduces paging and makes it easier for viewers to find the image(s) they want, but I'm fine if you have a different opinion. My opinion is more practical than it is about aesthetics.

If you want to ask for a different feature to control this, you can go to the feature requests sub-forum (under the support forum) and ask for something there.

[omonra21]

I'm explaining how it works today. I have a personal opinion that once you've picked the largest main image that will fit, you might as well offer as many thumbs as possible because that reduces paging and makes it easier for viewers to find the image(s) they want, but I'm fine if you have a different opinion. My opinion is more practical than it is about aesthetics.

If you want to ask for a different feature to control this, you can go to the feature requests sub-forum (under the support forum) and ask for something there.

That's where I placed this thread :)

With regard to our differing views on best way to arrange a page - I think that's the beauty of SM - they let people customize their site to look the way they see best.

[jfriend]

That's where I placed this thread :)

With regard to our differing views on best way to arrange a page - I think that's the beauty of SM - they let people customize their site to look the way they see best. Make sense to me.