New! SmugMug "Stretchy" -- Help, Questions here

[Andy]

Here is the place to discuss the newest upgrade to SmugMug style "stretchy" (http://www.smugmug.com/help/full-of-photos.mg) and how your galleries can now go big and wiiiide :ivar

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/227185626-L.jpg

Want to play? Go here (http://concours.smugmug.com/gallery/198244#7562682) and simply resize your browser window. FAQs? You bet, right here (http://www.smugmug.com/help/full-of-photos-faq.mg).

Holler here if you have any questions, or need any help with the feature. If you have customizing questions, they go here in this thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=77553).

[Andy]

Q: Does it work in all viewing styles?
A: Only "smugmug" viewing style stretches, currently.

Q: I have a small monitor, can I see what it looks like?
A: You bet - right here (http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/3907332#226689247-A-LB) and arrow forward to see bigger and bigger monitors/resolutions.

Q: Do themes stretch?
A: Most do, some don't... yet. Themes that don't stretch will appear just as they always have.

Themes that stretch: Blue, Fuchsia, Gold, Green, Khaki, Orange, Red, Tan, Teal, White, Yellow, Black Arts, Black and White, Fresh Air, Hitched, It's A Girl!, The Graduate, Bewitched, Gradient Grey, Gradient White, SmugMug Classic, SmugMug Dashed, SmugMug Gradient, and Blue Lagoon.


Q: Why do only some of my galleries stretch?
A: Check to see if you have a non-stretchy theme set for that gallery.

Q: What if I don't want my visitors to see my photos bigger?
A: No worries, we still honor the "largest display size" selected in your customize gallery settings. We'll only show the display sizes you allow.

Tip: If you are a Pro on SmugMug, let your visitors admire larger display sizes, and protect your photos with a custom watermark. Great example (http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/2843486#152358153).

Q: Will the thumbnails get bigger as the page stretches?
A: No, you'll get more thumbnails on the page but each thumbnail will stay the same size.

Q: Can I force the number of thumbs that display?
A: No. When your gallery stretches, we automatically fill the browser window with thumbnails.

Q: I'm a power or pro, can I opt-out of stretchy?
A: Sure. If you'd rather your visitors not see more thumbnails on the page, for whatever reason, just go to your customization page and toggle the stretchy option to "no".

Q: Can I still force "smugmug small" viewing style?
A: If you are a power or pro user, you can still force "smugmug small" viewing style in your customize gallery settings

[PBolchover]

Yippee. Even though the Old Family Album isn't stetchy (hint, hint), it looks excellent when I change the page style.

I notice that stretchy is by default set to off in the customisation settings.

One final request - it would be nice to be able to switch it on and off in individual galleries...

:clap:clap:clap:clap:barb:barb:barb:beer:beer:beer

[jfriend]

Yippee. Even though the Old Family Album isn't stetchy (hint, hint), it looks excellent when I change the page style.

I notice that stretchy is by default set to off in the customisation settings.

One final request - it would be nice to be able to switch it on and off in individual galleries...

:clap:clap:clap:clap:barb:barb:barb:beer:beer:beer

In a quick look at the Javascript for stretchiness, it looks like there probably is a way to control whether a gallery is stretchy or not from Javascript or at least what the largest size is that it can be stretched to.

Andy, any guidance from your web wizards on Javascript control over stretchiness? That would allow you to write JS that looks at the gallery and decides whether to turn stretchiness on or not. I, personally want it on everywhere.

[Sheaf]

Yippee. Even though the Old Family Album isn't stetchy (hint, hint), it looks excellent when I change the page style.

I notice that stretchy is by default set to off in the customisation settings.

One final request - it would be nice to be able to switch it on and off in individual galleries...

:clap:clap:clap:clap:barb:barb:barb:beer:beer:beer

Stretchy is off by default for anyone that had custom CSS prior to today.

As for switching it off and on for individual galleries, you can do that through CSS or by creating custom themes and making that particular theme not stretch. Then you could just apply that theme instead of the standard theme on each gallery you wanted to not stretch.

[bigwebguy]

Yippee. Even though the Old Family Album isn't stetchy (hint, hint), it looks excellent when I change the page style.

I notice that stretchy is by default set to off in the customisation settings.

One final request - it would be nice to be able to switch it on and off in individual galleries...

:clap:clap:clap:clap:barb:barb:barb:beer:beer:beerits only set to off if you had existing customization. If you had no css customization, it would default to 'on'.

[Dna]

Absolutely fantastic.

Excellent addition to the gallery display.

:clap:clap:clap:clap:ivar:ivar:ivar:bow:bow:bow:bow

Andrew

[DJ-S1]

Stretchy goodness and it even works across dual monitors! :clapSweet!

[Andy]

Stretchy goodness and it even works across dual monitors! :clapSweet!
:lol3 yah you can get insane if you like - here's 2x30" monitors

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/226689443-X2.jpg

[Ann McRae]

Not meaning to be totally clueless (but I am), I cannot figure out where to look for this - how to turn it on? Is it a theme, or a style, do you access it from the control panel or gallery by gallery in customize? :deal :dunno

Brain very dull...please hep

and I do have my site customized, if that makes a difference.

ann

[denisegoldberg]

:lol3 yah you can get insane if you like - here's 2x30" monitors


Andy -
Is that your puppy? Give him (or her) a hug for me, looks like a wonderful pet!

--- Denise

[devbobo]

Not meaning to be totally clueless (but I am), I cannot figure out where to look for this - how to turn it on? Is it a theme, or a style, do you access it from the control panel or gallery by gallery in customize? :deal :dunno

Brain very dull...please hep

and I do have my site customized, if that makes a difference.

ann

Ann,

You enable it globally from Control Panel->Customize tab->Customize link

Cheers,

David

[Andy]

Brain very dull...please hep

and I do have my site customized, if that makes a difference.

annAnn,

If you have customizing questions, they go here in this thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=77553). We'll be happy to help :D

[Ann McRae]

Got it - thanks Dave and Andy. :thumb

Should that have been obvious? I really am feeling thick as a post right now - do not operate heavy machinery warning!

ann

[Andy]

Got it - thanks Dave and Andy. :thumb

Should that have been obvious? I really am feeling thick as a post right now - do not operate heavy machinery warning!

annNah, that's what we're here for :thumb

[scwalter]

First, let me say :clap.

Second, mine didn't work at first because I had this:

SM.SmugMug.config.size = 'large';

in my javascript to force large style. Once removed, it's fine. Just an FYI in case anyone else had this hack.

-Scott

[Andy]

bump :)

[Allen]

I force the Smugmug style just about everywhere. But Smugmug style went
from 15 to 12 (bad) thumbs in my view window and Smugmug small from 9 to
16 (good).

Why can't a minimum of 15 be set for the smugmug style. I checked my
stats and approx. 95% are viewing in an equal or lower res. I don't want to
have to stretch my window every time I go there and it's a pita looking
through more pages for something.

Just had to rant.:D

[Andy]

Just had to rant.:D

Don't worry, rant away :D We're already working on making the 12 thing go away :)

Stay tuned please, thanks!

[Allen]

Don't worry, rant away :D We're already working on making the 12 thing go away :)

Stay tuned please, thanks!
Thanks Andy, just squeakin', thought the word minimum might trigger a
Neuron or two.:D

[Andy]

Thanks Andy, just squeakin', thought the word minimum might trigger a
Neuron or two.:D
To be clear: The idea is, if you were on 1024x768 before Stretchy, and you had 15thumbs, you'd still get 15 thumbs with Stretchy :)

If you are smaller, you'll get fewer thumbs.

[Allen]

The Photo Information box jumps back to the top left of the main image with
every photo change no mater where I place it. Was this intentional? Does
it in every smugmug style gallery.

[denisegoldberg]

The Photo Information box jumps back to the top left of the main image with
every photo change no mater where I place it. Was this intentional? Does
it in every smugmug style gallery.
Interesting... I just ran a test with my own galleries in both IE7 and Firefox on XP, and the photo information box stays whereever I place it. I wonder what the difference is (besides that I'm running on Windows and you're on a Mac, right?). Tried your galleries too, behavior is the same as it is with mine.

--- Denise

[Allen]

Interesting... I just ran a test with my own galleries in both IE7 and Firefox on XP, and the photo information box stays whereever I place it. I wonder what the difference is (besides that I'm running on Windows and you're on a Mac, right?). Tried your galleries too, behavior is the same as it is with mine.

--- Denise
The box relocates using FF2 on my site and yours. It doesn't do it with IE6, Opera or Flock.
On PC with Win2KP here.

[Awais Yaqub]

:huh
Wow
Amazing
Artificial Inteligence :huh

[Andy]

I force the Smugmug style just about everywhere. But Smugmug style went
from 15 to 12 (bad) thumbs in my view window and Smugmug small from 9 to
16 (good).

Why can't a minimum of 15 be set for the smugmug style. I checked my
stats and approx. 95% are viewing in an equal or lower res. I don't want to
have to stretch my window every time I go there and it's a pita looking
through more pages for something.

Just had to rant.:DWe thought 15 would be right but it turns out that that last row of thumbs is "below the fold" for most people on 1024x768, so we made it so that you get the Medium main image again (just like old times) but now you get 12 thumbs until you stretch.

http://myskitch.com/awilliamsny/windows_xp_professional-20071204-123917.jpg

And a bonus, now, when you stretch big, say if you are on a 1680px monitor or larger, you'll get -Th thumbs (the 150px thumbs) instead of the 100px -Ti thumbs:

example, courtesy of Dgrinner and SmugMugger Corbosman (http://SmugMungous.smugmug.com/gallery/2486211#211052658):

http://myskitch.com/awilliamsny/smugmungous___photos___amazing_fish-_powered_by_smugmug-20071204-123457.jpg

[spider-t]

Do I loose the ability to navigate through my thumbnails using my arrow keys (using smugmug classic theme) now that I've gone stretchy?

That doesn't seem to be working any longer.

thanks!
Trish

[jfriend]

Do I loose the ability to navigate through my thumbnails using my arrow keys (using smugmug classic theme) now that I've gone stretchy?

That doesn't seem to be working any longer.

thanks!
Trish

One other data point: In the Smugmug style, keyboard nav works for me in Firefox and Safari and it does not work in IE.

[spider-t]

One other data point: In the Smugmug style, keyboard nav works for me in Firefox and Safari and it does not work in IE.

I'm using Firefox ver 2.0.0.11. And it's not working for me.

-Trish

[jfriend]

I'm using Firefox ver 2.0.0.11. And it's not working for me.

-Trish

I'm running that same version of Firefox (on Windows Vista). When I explore more, I find that it works in both your galleries and my galleries when the gallery is first loaded "until" I click on a thumb. Then it doesn't work any more.

[{JT}]

I'm running that same version of Firefox (on Windows Vista). When I explore more, I find that it works in both your galleries and my galleries when the gallery is first loaded "until" I click on a thumb. Then it doesn't work any more.

This was broken with yesterdays stretchy enhancement, it will be fixed shortly.

[natephoto]

I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet.. (or maybe it has and I missed it?)

So it doesn't work in some themes? Including the one I use; carbonite. I spent a lot of time customizing it to fit with my regular, non-smugmug site, so I'm not about to change themes... But will there eventually be support for the themes that don't currently work in stretchy mode??:dunno

Thanks!
Nate

[Sheaf]

I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet.. (or maybe it has and I missed it?)

So it doesn't work in some themes? Including the one I use; carbonite. I spent a lot of time customizing it to fit with my regular, non-smugmug site, so I'm not about to change themes... But will there eventually be support for the themes that don't currently work in stretchy mode??:dunno

Thanks!
Nate

Nate,

We are working on it. We did as many themes as we could for the first batch.

[cjyphoto]

What happened to stretchy? It used to automatically fit images now it just has the largest size possible and I have to scroll to see the whole image! This is a step way back in my opinion!

[natephoto]

Nate,

We are working on it. We did as many themes as we could for the first batch.
Okay thanks!:barb

[cjyphoto]

What is going on here? I appreciate the effort to put stretchy into service but it seems to be causing me problems. Please see the images and comments in the following link.

http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3950239

[jackstone]

I recently stretched my monitor size a little, so I love "stretchy;" however, I'm wondering if this new feature has contributed to my newest non-life-threatening situation: too many thumbnails. All of my galleries are customized to force the "smugmug" style. The larger galleries are forcing up to 35 thumbnails per page, which would be perfect if I had 60" of monitor space on my 48" desk.

http://highcountryregister.smugmug.com/gallery/3927563/1/227999386#227999386

Any thoughts on how I might get back to, say, 15 thumbnails per page would be warmly welcomed. :scratch

[jfriend]

I recently stretched my monitor size a little, so I love "stretchy;" however, I'm wondering if this new feature has contributed to my newest non-life-threatening situation: too many thumbnails. All of my galleries are customized to force the "smugmug" style. The larger galleries are forcing up to 35 thumbnails per page, which would be perfect if I had 60" of monitor space on my 48" desk.

http://highcountryregister.smugmug.com/gallery/3927563/1/227999386#227999386

Any thoughts on how I might get back to, say, 15 thumbnails per page would be warmly welcomed. :scratch

Can you describe in more detail what the problem is? The Smugmug style should fill available room in your window with the appropriate size main image and as many thumbs as will fit in your window. Is this what you are seeing? Or something else?

Make your window larger, get more thumbs and a bigger main image. Make your window smaller and get fewer thumbs and a smaller main image. It should all auto-adjust to your window size. The gallery you linked works normally for me. With a medium sized window, I get 15 thumbs. With a larger window, I get more. With a smaller window, I get less.

[pyry]

The new style seems to prefer too small sizes for my liking. I tend to get smalls with a just-a-shade under 1280x1024 window (sidebar open) in firefox. IE7 tends toward the small sizes a bit less (no sidebar).

Forcing SM.SmugMug.config.size = 'large'; seems to help quite a bit, off course this breaks down on narrower window sizes.

I'd like to see a preference (setting) toward even less thumbnails than 3 columns. Letting the footer run out of the window would be fine. Something like having medium as the smallest size allowed would be great as well.

Setting the stretchy off results in 'smugmug small', doesn't it?

[PBolchover]

The new style seems to prefer too small sizes for my liking.

My experience is that the size of the main image is governed more by the height of your browser window, than by its width.

[cjyphoto]

I recently stretched my monitor size a little, so I love "stretchy;" however, I'm wondering if this new feature has contributed to my newest non-life-threatening situation: too many thumbnails. All of my galleries are customized to force the "smugmug" style. The larger galleries are forcing up to 35 thumbnails per page, which would be perfect if I had 60" of monitor space on my 48" desk.

http://highcountryregister.smugmug.com/gallery/3927563/1/227999386#227999386

Any thoughts on how I might get back to, say, 15 thumbnails per page would be warmly welcomed. :scratch

Looks like your gallery is messed up just like mine. Not sure what to do. It was working properly when they first rolled it out. The auto does not seem to be working.:dunno

[Andy]

Looks like your gallery is messed up just like mine. Not sure what to do. It was working properly when they first rolled it out. The auto does not seem to be working.:dunno
Hi, can you say which gallery please? I looked here
http://www.cjyphoto.com/gallery/3589777#205384150

and you don't have stretchy turned on....

[jackstone]

thanks, John...upon further inspection, only two of my galleries are out of whack. All other galleries are 6x5 (30 thumbs) with spacing and these look great. The two in question are 7x5 (35 thumbs) and these stack on top of one another, overlapping on the page. These two galleries are located under the "Mauka-Makai" category. It may be totally un-stretchy related, but the timing made me wonder.

appreciate the response.

highcountryregister.smugmug.com

[Andy]

thanks, John...upon further inspection, only two of my galleries are out of whack. All other galleries are 6x5 (30 thumbs) with spacing and these look great. The two in question are 7x5 (35 thumbs) and these stack on top of one another, overlapping on the page. These two galleries are located under the "Mauka-Makai" category. It may be totally un-stretchy related, but the timing made me wonder.

appreciate the response.

highcountryregister.smugmug.com
hi Jack - can you give us links directly to the galleries so we can help? Thanks!

[cjyphoto]

Hi, can you say which gallery please? I looked here
http://www.cjyphoto.com/gallery/3589777#205384150

and you don't have stretchy turned on....

I know, I turned it off because it looked like crap. I turned on again to show you how it looks. Like I said before the "auto" resize does not seem to be working. This link shows you what is going on with my galleries. http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3950239#229482769

[jfriend]

thanks, John...upon further inspection, only two of my galleries are out of whack. All other galleries are 6x5 (30 thumbs) with spacing and these look great. The two in question are 7x5 (35 thumbs) and these stack on top of one another, overlapping on the page. These two galleries are located under the "Mauka-Makai" category. It may be totally un-stretchy related, but the timing made me wonder.

appreciate the response.

highcountryregister.smugmug.com

I don't currently see any problem witrh any of your Mauka-Makai galleries. They all lay out fine for me at all window sizes. I do know the problem that you are describing. I saw it today temporarily on one of my own galleries. It happened when I was resizing the gallery while the thumbs were still loading. The thumbs displayed all overlapping with each other and wouldn't fix themselves when I resized the window. When I went to another gallery and then came back, it fixed itself. It is some sort of bug somewhere (Smugmug Javascript or browser). I cannot reproduce it, but I have seen it and it sounds similar to what you describe. Mine fixed itself by just going to a different gallery and then coming back.

Andy, I believe the galleries he is talking about are here: http://highcountryregister.smugmug.com/Mauka%20-%20Makai.

[cjyphoto]

Just checke it with IE7 and it looks ok. So the problem seems to be with Firefox browsers.

[jackstone]

thanks again, John...and Andy. I was pretty sure I saw it earlier in the day in galleries besides the two I mentioned, so it does seem to come and go.

That is the right link and the two galleries in question are the Maui & Big Island galleries. Sounds like it will work itself out. I've had those galleries open all day for updates and that might explain why I'm seeing it persistently on my browser.

...many mahalos for taking the time to check that out.

[cabbey]

And a bonus, now, when you stretch big, say if you are on a 1680px monitor or larger, you'll get -Th thumbs (the 150px thumbs) instead of the 100px -Ti thumbs:

which now obsoletes this FAQ entry:

Q: Will the thumbnails get bigger as the page stretches?
A: No, you'll get more thumbnails on the page but each thumbnail will stay the same size.

[davenicholls]

Hi,

I seem to be having similar problems. Some window shapes seem to work fine, but if I maximise on my 1680x1050 monitor the bottom of portrait format pictures is cut off; landscape format fits the screen, but only just and the tools aren't visible.

The 1680x1050 is a second monitor set up as an extended desktop to my 1024x768 laptop display. I'm wondering if having two different sized monitors is causing the problem?

Dave

[PBolchover]

Hi,

I seem to be having similar problems. Some window shapes seem to work fine, but if I maximise on my 1680x1050 monitor the bottom of portrait format pictures is cut off; landscape format fits the screen, but only just and the tools aren't visible.


Do you have a tall header? Or a long gallery description? As far as I can tell, smugmug ignores these elements when decided how big an image can fit on the screen.

[davenicholls]

Do you have a tall header? Or a long gallery description? As far as I can tell, smugmug ignores these elements when decided how big an image can fit on the screen.

I have a custom logo, but removing it doesn't make any difference. The galleries are at http://davenicholls.smugmug.com, they all seem to be behaving the same way.

Dave

[cjyphoto]

My galleries were looking better yesterday. Today they look messed up again. Like others have said the portrait does not fit the screen without scrolling. Even landscapes do not fit without scrolling! Seems to me there is some bug with the auto sizing. http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3950239#230019719-A-LB

[{JT}]

My galleries were looking better yesterday. Today they look messed up again. Like others have said the portrait does not fit the screen without scrolling. Even landscapes do not fit without scrolling! Seems to me there is some bug with the auto sizing. http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3950239#230019719-A-LB

Actually - it has behaved that way since the day we released it:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=692686&postcount=39

[cjyphoto]

Actually - it has behaved that way since the day we released it:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=692686&postcount=39

Are you sure about that? This is the way it looked, and some galleries still look when I first used it:

http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3950239#230403035

See everything fits! There is no scrolling required. Some of my galleries still look this way and some look like this:

http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3950239#230019719

What settings do I have to use to make things fit? :dunno

[{JT}]

A lot goes in to the calculations - for example: do both galleries offer the new larger sizes like xl,xl2 and xl3?

If you send links to the galleries in question I could look in to it further, but I am very sure about how it calculates what size to show :)

Are you sure about that? This is the way it looked, and some galleries still look when I first used it:

http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3950239#230403035

See everything fits! There is no scrolling required. Some of my galleries still look this way and some look like this:

http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3950239#230019719

What settings do I have to use to make things fit? :dunno

[cjyphoto]

A lot goes in to the calculations - for example: do both galleries offer the new larger sizes like xl,xl2 and xl3?

If you send links to the galleries in question I could look in to it further, but I am very sure about how it calculates what size to show :)

Ok. I've played around a bit and noticed that if the gallery allows up to Large the page looks good like the first link. If I allow XL or above it looks like crap. So Smugmungous and Stretchy do not really play well together. Personally I like more thumbnails with a Large image. If one want to look at a bigger image they should be able to look at in lightbox at the maximum size the site owner allows. This would sort standardize how the the pages look when initially opened. Just my two cents.

[jfriend]

Ok. I've played around a bit and noticed that if the gallery allows up to Large the page looks good like the first link. If I allow XL or above it looks like crap. So Smugmungous and Stretchy do not really play well together. Personally I like more thumbnails with a Large image. If one want to look at a bigger image they should be able to look at in lightbox at the maximum size the site owner allows. This would sort standardize how the the pages look when initially opened. Just my two cents.

My guess is that this happens to you because your header takes a fair amount of vertical space (e.g. it's fairly tall) and your screen is large enough to show header and an L-sized image, but not large enough to show header and an XL image.

I think JT assumes a "standard" amount of space is used for the header and if your header is larger, then the code may pick a number of thumbs or main image size that needs a little scrolling for first view (after that, the scroll position stays constant so no subsequent scrolling is required even when you page through the gallery). I have only a small amount of space where the header is and I don't see the issue you are discussing on any of my galleries.

I wonder if it's possible to constraing the Smugmug style to L, but still see the other sizes in Lightbox. That isn't personally what I want (I love stretchy and big images because I have a big screen), but I wonder if you can do that. In the back of my mind, I'm remember some config variable that might be relevant here.

[cjyphoto]

I wonder if it's possible to constraing the Smugmug style to L, but still see the other sizes in Lightbox. That isn't personally what I want (I love stretchy and big images because I have a big screen), but I wonder if you can do that. In the back of my mind, I'm remember some config variable that might be relevant here.

My screen is 24" running at 1920 x 1200. Not exactly small!

I want to like the larger stretchy Smug but I think it looks like crap when the gallery loads and the bottom half of the image is not visible and the thumbs are cut off at the bottom to boot.

[jfriend]

My screen is 24" running at 1920 x 1200. Not exactly small!

I want to like the larger stretchy Smug but I think it looks like crap when the gallery loads and the bottom half of the image is not visible and the thumbs are cut off at the bottom to boot.

Fair enough. Apparently the stretchy calculations don't pay any attention to the height of either a custom header or a long description. In a gallery like this one (http://www.cjyphoto.com/gallery/3589777#205384150) of yours that I picked at random, you have a header that takes up 174 pixels and a three line description that takes up another 54 pixels and a somewhat weirdly formatted style picker (which Smugmug did, not you) that takes up another 47 pixels. So, there's more than 20% of your height gone with those customizations and the total height (including other visual items) of the things above the top of the first thumb in this gallery is 341 pixels (28% of the window height). For reference, a non-customized gallery in the smugmug style is 162 pixels high and a minimalist gallery is 113 pixels high.

So, since one of stretchy's design goals is to get more thumbs on the screen and it apparently it is ignoring the custom header height, you can see why it sometimes hits this problem. It also won't put thumbs that extend below the tallest main image which is why restricting the size of the main image will successfully limit the number of thumbs.

There are a couple possible solutions that I can imagine:

Tighten up your header design so it doesn't take so much height. If Smugmug was this way from the beginning, you probably would have made some different design choices when you built the header so you could consider those now.
Do some custom CSS to tighten up the (somewhat wasteful) things above your images that are taking vertical space, but are not your custom header such as the style picker and the share photo button. I've been bugging Smugmug about the style picker myself because it looks like it was just completely left out of the stretchy design thinking. It floats out at a seemingly random right margin, wastes vertical space because it's not coordinated with any other design elements (except Smugmug's default header) and it doesn't look like a very modern design element compare to the other custom buttons Smugmug uses.
Turn off stretchy. You have an option in your control panel.
Set max image size to L (which will also limit the number of thumbs) if you have that option at your account level.
Convince Smugmug to take the custom header and description height into account (perhaps up to some limit) when laying out the page in a future design iteration so that neither the main image nor the thumbs ever go below the edge of the window (until your window gets really small). I don't know the feasability of doing this, but it strikes me as something that would be possible.

[Andy]

Tighten up your header design so it doesn't take so much height.

:agree and also try allowing even larger sizes. http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/634937#156527313

[cjyphoto]

:agree and also try allowing even larger sizes. http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/634937#156527313


You agree? NO HEADER and still looks like crap! Sorry Andy, Looked at your link and the thumbs were still cut off at the bottom! Looks bad in my opinion! Trust me larger sizes do not help! My header is actually smaller in height than what the help tips in SmugMug suggests. My Nav Buttons were also taken straight from SmugMug Help. So is one to totally abandoned any customization's including a freaking description to make smugmoungous and stretchy work properly? Even that does not work!

Look, Before stretchy you could set your sizes to large at the most and if the viewer wanted larger they could click on the image and choose from a list of sizes that were available. As it is now there is no way to limit the size of image in the gallery view using stretchy and smugmongous. I'm all for big images, but to a point. When it makes the gallery look like crap I have to say it is to freaking big!

Here is a link to a screen cap with NO FREAKING HEADER!:

http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3950239#232838645-A-LB

I changed the Theme to something ridiculous so that you would concentrate on what is actually goin on in the image I posted.

[jfriend]

You agree? NO HEADER and still looks like crap! Sorry Andy, Looked at your link and the thumbs were still cut off at the bottom! Looks bad in my opinion! Trust me larger sizes do not help! My header is actually smaller in height than what the help tips in SmugMug suggests. My Nav Buttons were also taken straight from SmugMug Help. So is one to totally abandoned any customization's including a freaking description to make smugmoungous and stretchy work properly? Even that does not work!

Look, Before stretchy you could set your sizes to large at the most and if the viewer wanted larger they could click on the image and choose from a list of sizes that were available. As it is now there is no way to limit the size of image in the gallery view using stretchy and smugmongous. I'm all for big images, but to a point. When it makes the gallery look like crap I have to say it is to freaking big!

Here is a link to a screen cap with NO FREAKING HEADER!:

http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3950239#232838645-A-LB

I changed the Theme to something ridiculous so that you would concentrate on what is actually going on in the image I posted.

Andy and JT, I think I'd have to agree with cjyphoto here that there's a bit of a problem with the layout algorithm that picks the size of the main image and how many thumbs, at least how it's working in his galleries. While he's stressing the system a bit with his header design, the layout algorithm still appears to be making a poor choice in some circumstances and I think he's right that it still has a problem in his galleries even when his header is shorter and more in the typical range.

You can see it in this gallery (http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3647593#208149938) of his and size your window so that the total viewable space in the browser window is 1210 wide and 700 high (still fairly large). At that size, the algorithm decides to display the Large size main image because it just fits in the landscape orientation when you have three columns of thumbs. But, the landscape orientation is tall enough that it makes 5 rows of thumbs when only four are visible on the screen. Here's a screen shot of that exact configuration in his gallery:
http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/232980539-L.jpg

And, believe it or not, there is another row of thumbs below the ones you can see. I cannot reproduce this on one of my own galleries so I'm not sure what is triggering it, but I don't think it's only because of the header size. Try it yourself on this gallery and see if you think it's working as best it should. I think there is some sort of logic problem or something weird going on in his galleries.

It appears to happen when the screen is wide enough to allow the main image to be large. In that case, it sizes the number of thumbs to match the height of a portrait orientation large image, but that leaves an entire row of thumbs off screen.

[Andy]

Andy and JT... (snip)

Thanks - I'll make sure {JT} sees this :)

[{JT}]

I already answered this and linked to my reply, but I will do so again:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=692686&postcount=39

I don't look at header height when I do calculations - because there are some users with headers that are 1000px tall. You would end up with a small photo - which is lame.

Instead I look at the height of the browser window. Why? Because you can scroll down past the header and the photo and thumbs will fit perfectly. This approach would not have worked if the page had to redraw on every click and you would have to scroll down to see the photo and thumbs. But the gallery is ajaxed, you only have to scroll once.

The moral of the story is to have a smaller header if you are concerned that users won't know they have to scroll down to see the rest of your main photo or another row of thumbs.



Andy and JT, I think I'd have to agree with cjyphoto here that there's a bit of a problem with the layout algorithm that picks the size of the main image and how many thumbs, at least how it's working in his galleries. While he's stressing the system a bit with his header design, the layout algorithm still appears to be making a poor choice in some circumstances and I think he's right that it still has a problem in his galleries even when his header is shorter and more in the typical range.

You can see it in this gallery (http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3647593#208149938) of his and size your window so that the total viewable space in the browser window is 1210 wide and 700 high (still fairly large). At that size, the algorithm decides to display the Large size main image because it just fits in the landscape orientation when you have three columns of thumbs. But, the landscape orientation is tall enough that it makes 5 rows of thumbs when only four are visible on the screen. Here's a screen shot of that exact configuration in his gallery:
http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/232980539-L.jpg

And, believe it or not, there is another row of thumbs below the ones you can see. I cannot reproduce this on one of my own galleries so I'm not sure what is triggering it, but I don't think it's only because of the header size. Try it yourself on this gallery and see if you think it's working as best it should. I think there is some sort of logic problem or something weird going on in his galleries.

It appears to happen when the screen is wide enough to allow the main image to be large. In that case, it sizes the number of thumbs to match the height of a portrait orientation large image, but that leaves an entire row of thumbs off screen.

[jfriend]

I already answered this and linked to my reply, but I will do so again:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=692686&postcount=39

I don't look at header height when I do calculations - because there are some users with headers that are 1000px tall. You would end up with a small photo - which is lame.

Instead I look at the height of the browser window. Why? Because you can scroll down past the header and the photo and thumbs will fit perfectly. This approach would not have worked if the page had to redraw on every click and you would have to scroll down to see the photo and thumbs. But the gallery is ajaxed, you only have to scroll once.

The moral of the story is to have a smaller header if you are concerned that users won't know they have to scroll down to see the rest of your main photo or another row of thumbs.

I know you don't take into account the header height, but I think something else is going on here.

How many pixels do you allow for between the top of the window and the top of the top row of thumbs in order to never have thumbs off the bottom of the screen? I assume you must have this number coded into your algorithm somewhere.

I just want to verify that if he lives by that number, this gallery would work and it's ONLY an issue with his header height. Based on his other screen shots when he shrunk his header, I think there might be some other issue going on in this gallery and I'd just like to see for sure.

Separately, you are seeing a clear feature request from several foks for some way for users to control this themselves so they never get scrolling even when they have a little bit larger than normal header. That doesn't sound all that hard for you to do. You could just make a javascript variable that defaults to the default header height that you plan for and let them set it to something larger if they want to reserve more space for header so thumbs don't layout off screen. I'm not arguing that you should change the defaults, but some users feel like they lost some control they had before and this would give it back to them.

[cjyphoto]

I really do not think it has anything to do with my header size. Like I said earlier it is actually not as tall as what is recommended in the Header tutorial. W750px x H150px.

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1932865

My header is W765px x H125px. I do not see how that could be stressing the system when it pretty close to SmugMug's recommended dimensions.

Besides it does the same thing with no header. I've also seen the same problem in other galleries not just mine.

http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/photos/232838645-L.jpg

Ironically Stretchy seems to work better when viewed on a standard monitor as opposed to a widescreen. Go figure?

[jfriend]

I really do not think it has anything to do with my header size. Like I said earlier it is actually not as tall as what is recommended in the Header tutorial. W750px x H150px.

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1932865

My header is W765px x H125px. I do not see how that could be stressing the system when it pretty close to SmugMug's recommended dimensions.

Besides it does the same thing with no header. I've also seen the same problem in other galleries not just mine.

http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/photos/232838645-L.jpg

Ironically Stretchy seems to work better when viewed on a standard monitor as opposed to a widescreen. Go figure?

Keep in mind that your header image may only be 125px high, but you have a nav bar also that makes your total definitely more than 150px. I don't think that's the only issue going on here, but you could reduce the problem by tightening up the space you take at the top.

[jfriend]

I really do not think it has anything to do with my header size. Like I said earlier it is actually not as tall as what is recommended in the Header tutorial. W750px x H150px.

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1932865

My header is W765px x H125px. I do not see how that could be stressing the system when it pretty close to SmugMug's recommended dimensions.

Besides it does the same thing with no header. I've also seen the same problem in other galleries not just mine.

http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/photos/232838645-L.jpg

Ironically Stretchy seems to work better when viewed on a standard monitor as opposed to a widescreen. Go figure?

Yeah, the reason it is a challenge on the widescreen, but not standard width is because it calculates that the Large image width (landscape orientation) will fit on the widescreen so it selects that size for the main image. It then figures it can fill up the Large screen height (protrait orientation) with thumbs. On the standard width screen, it never thinks the Large size (landscape orientation) will fit so it goes to the medium size and doesn't put in as many thumbs. I'm hoping JT looks at this again because your example with no header seems like it wouldn't be what anybody intended with the design.

The one thing that has me confused is that my account has no header and I cannot reproduce this effect on my account. I can get it so that about 1/4 of the bottom row of thumbs is clipped, but that's the most I can get it to do and even then, it's hard to do that because a little less and it takes a row of thumbs off - a little more and the thumbs are not obscured.

[{JT}]

Currently, the page is calculated using the screenheight - 100px

That could be increased, causing the main photo size to drop thus the rows of thumbs would go down as well.

I can take a look today to see if it works out.

[pyry]

Currently, the page is calculated using the screenheight - 100px

That could be increased, causing the main photo size to drop thus the rows of thumbs would go down as well.

I can take a look today to see if it works out.
While you're at it, could you make the layout favor larger sizes for less thumbnails? At least for smaller windows. A browser window width of around 1000 px (1280 minus a bit and a sidebar) now produces a small (!) main image with 4 (!!) columns of thumbs. You could easily fit a medium there if you lost a column or two, and that would be great. I don't mind scrolling down once for portraits.

This affects all of my galleries I've looked at, example here (http://pyry.smugmug.com/gallery/3662183#209184148).
I'll post screenshot if can coax my print screen button to life again :D

Another thing, could we get portraits centered under the < 6 of 9 > navigator?

Thanks!

[{JT}]

A screenshot would be most helpful.

While you're at it, could you make the layout favor larger sizes for less thumbnails? At least for smaller windows. A browser window width of around 1000 px (1280 minus a bit and a sidebar) now produces a small (!) main image with 4 (!!) columns of thumbs. You could easily fit a medium there if you lost a column or two, and that would be great. I don't mind scrolling down once for portraits.

This affects all of my galleries I've looked at, example here (http://pyry.smugmug.com/gallery/3662183#209184148).
I'll post screenshot if can coax my print screen button to life again :D

Another thing, could we get portraits centered under the < 6 of 9 > navigator?

Thanks!

[pyry]

A screenshot would be most helpful.
Here goes then:

Sidebar open (http://wooster.hut.fi/%7Epekholm/kuvat/smugmug_stretchy_sidebar_open.jpg) and sidebar closed (http://wooster.hut.fi/%7Epekholm/kuvat/smugmug_stretchy_sidebar_closed.jpg).

Size of my browsing area is 1040x840 px with and 1235x840 px without the sidebar. One shows a small main pic and the other a large. If you could squeeze at least a medium there where the small is, that would be great.

Edit: forgot to mention the browser in question is FF 2.0.0.11. IE7 does the same thing though.

[cjyphoto]

So.... Is this just the way it is going to be? Just looked at some more galleries, not mine, and see the same thing where stretchy has been enabled. The thumbs are cut off at the bottom even if there is no header. To me it looks wrong like something is messed up. A friend of mine asked me if I did something to my site because of the way the page loaded. I had to tell him, Nope, I've been told that is how it supposed to look. :bash

[{JT}]

There is a small calculation bug when you have 1024x768, a fix should be out shortly.

Here goes then:

Sidebar open (http://wooster.hut.fi/%7Epekholm/kuvat/smugmug_stretchy_sidebar_open.jpg) and sidebar closed (http://wooster.hut.fi/%7Epekholm/kuvat/smugmug_stretchy_sidebar_closed.jpg).

Size of my browsing area is 1040x840 px with and 1235x840 px without the sidebar. One shows a small main pic and the other a large. If you could squeeze at least a medium there where the small is, that would be great.

Edit: forgot to mention the browser in question is FF 2.0.0.11. IE7 does the same thing though.

[{JT}]

Can you give me a screen resolution to look at galleries with?

So.... Is this just the way it is going to be? Just looked at some more galleries, not mine, and see the same thing where stretchy has been enabled. The thumbs are cut off at the bottom even if there is no header. To me it looks wrong like something is messed up. A friend of mine asked me if I did something to my site because of the way the page loaded. I had to tell him, Nope, I've been told that is how it supposed to look. :bash

[pyry]

There is a small calculation bug when you have 1024x768, a fix should be out shortly.

Good news, thank you :D

[{JT}]

Can you give me a screen resolution to look at galleries with?

Nevermind, I got it from your previous screenshot. I modified the ideal header height to be 175px tall - and it works well across several standard screen resolutions. The change will hopefully go live soon.

[jfriend]

Nevermind, I got it from your previous screenshot. I modified the ideal header height to be 175px tall - and it works well across several standard screen resolutions. The change will hopefully go live soon.

Cool. I'm glad this will improve things for particular screen sizes or people with larger headers. Thanks JT.

Now, for those of us with skinny headers, will we lose a row of thumbs on some screens and will it go to a smaller main image sooner? Any chance of adding a JS variable to let us control this ideal header height if we want to and know what we're doing?

[{JT}]

175px is for a skinny header - it is actually the default header, plus a line for the breadcrumb, two lines in the description and the row for navigation.

Cool. I'm glad this will improve things for particular screen sizes or people with larger headers. Thanks JT.

Now, for those of us with skinny headers, will we lose a row of thumbs on some screens and will it go to a smaller main image sooner? Any chance of adding a JS variable to let us control this ideal header height if we want to and know what we're doing?

[jfriend]

175px is for a skinny header - it is actually the default header, plus a line for the breadcrumb, two lines in the description and the row for navigation.

I was asking on behalf of those (like me) who have headers that are skinnier than the default (mine is 105 pixels) and on behalf of those with larger than default headers who would rather sacrifice a row of thumbs and some main image size than have scrolling. Is there any reason to not give us control over this for our own galleries with a simple JS variable? You could still even control the default if you wanted by giving us a variable that you initialize to zero and we just put in a delta value (positive or negative).

[wellman]

Any way we could get an order-of-attack on the stretchifying the remaining themes? I know time's always variable, but it would be good to know which will get top priority. I'm interested in Carbonite, personally. Thanks.

[Sheaf]

Any way we could get an order-of-attack on the stretchifying the remaining themes? I know time's always variable, but it would be good to know which will get top priority. I'm interested in Carbonite, personally. Thanks.

That seems to be a very popular one. I can't give you any information about the order-of-attack, but I can tell you that the remaining themes are much more difficult to stretch than the ones we already stretched.

[{JT}]

175px is for a skinny header - it is actually the default header, plus a line for the breadcrumb, two lines in the description and the row for navigation.


This change is now live, jfriend: I will look in to making it smarter to auto calculate the header size. But for now, I did not want to hold up a bug free release :)

[jfriend]

This change is now live, jfriend: I will look in to making it smarter to auto calculate the header size. But for now, I did not want to hold up a bug free release :)
I'm seeing some significant layout problems where the main image gets laid out below the thumbs in Firefox. I used to only see this while I was resizing the window. Now, I see it at a number of specific window sizes. Screen shots below. Let me know if you can't reproduce it. It's easy for me to reproduce and it's not just an artifact of changing the window size. I can go to a different gallery and the problem persists. There appears to be some particular window sizes where the layout algorithm thinks things will fit in the window and Firefox doesn't think they will.

This looks like a definite problem to me.

http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/234488914-XL.jpg
http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/234489341-XL.jpg
http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/234489641-XL.jpg

[JEphotography]

The same thing happens on Opera Browser.

I'm seeing some significant layout problems where the main image gets laid out below the thumbs in Firefox. I used to only see this while I was resizing the window. Now, I see it at a number of specific window sizes. Screen shots below. Let me know if you can't reproduce it. It's easy for me to reproduce and it's not just an artifact of changing the window size. I can go to a different gallery and the problem persists. There appears to be some particular window sizes where the layout algorithm thinks things will fit in the window and Firefox doesn't think they will.

This looks pretty serious to me.

[jfriend]

The same thing happens on Opera Browser.

I can't reproduce it in IE 7. I can make it happen in Safari, though not as easily as Firefox.

[Andy]

I can't reproduce it in IE 7. I can make it happen in Safari, though not as easily as Firefox.
I'm sure JT will get it fixed - thanks for the email and the post.

EDIT: Seems to be only on Vista. But not IE7 :) Go figure.

[Andy]

I'm sure JT will get it fixed

John, fixed? :ear

[jfriend]

John, fixed? :ear In a few minutes of playing around, it seems to be fixed now. That was quick - cool!

[cjyphoto]

Just checked my galleries and they look better! Thanks! :clap

[pyry]

This change is now live, jfriend: I will look in to making it smarter to auto calculate the header size. But for now, I did not want to hold up a bug free release :)

The layout has definately improved, thanks a bunch!

[Jason Dunn]

I was really excited by this until I remembered that my template is fixed width, so this doesn't really help me. But it's still awesome to see, and many other people will benefit from this. :D

[Erick L]

Sometimes I get 6 thumbnails wide instead of a larger image. My screen is at 1440*900. I get 4 thumbnails and a large image if i press F11 but I had 4 and a large image before. I changed a watermark on a photo and when I came back to the gallery, I had 6 thumbs and a small image, in all galleries.

[{JT}]

Sometimes I get 6 thumbnails wide instead of a larger image. My screen is at 1440*900. I get 4 thumbnails and a large image if i press F11 but I had 4 and a large image before. I changed a watermark on a photo and when I came back to the gallery, I had 6 thumbs and a small image, in all galleries.


Screenshot please.

[Erick L]

Four thumbnails after pressing F11.

[Erick L]

Six thumbnails and small image without F11. The same happens in IE when logged out.

And like someone said, I get four thumbnail and a very small image at 1024*768. I'd rather have only three thumbnails and a larger image. That was 4-5 days ago and will check again when I'm on that screen.

[bigwebguy]

Six thumbnails and small image without F11. The same happens in IE when logged out.

And like someone said, I get four thumbnail and a very small image at 1024*768. I'd rather have only three thumbnails and a larger image. That was 4-5 days ago and will check again when I'm on that screen.
If you hide the status bar and/or use small toolbar icons, what happens?

[KMCC]

Just an interesting observation that may have already been noted, but a search for the keywords "stretchy and community" yielded nothing.

I've selected the stretchy option, but the only galleries that actually stretch are those associated with a Smugmug community.

I'm using the Dark Sand theme.

Any suggestions on how to get galleries to stretch that aren't associated with a community?

[denisegoldberg]

Just an interesting observation that may have already been noted, but a search for the keywords "stretchy and community" yielded nothing.

I've selected the stretchy option, but the only galleries that actually stretch are those associated with a Smugmug community.

I'm using the Dark Sand theme.

Any suggestions on how to get galleries to stretch that aren't associated with a community?
On this help page - http://www.smugmug.com/help/full-of-photos-faq.mg - Dark Sand is not in the list of themes that stretch. I suspect that for now if you want your galleries to stretch that you'll need to choose a different theme.

--- Denise

[tittelba]

I'm still having the same problem that jfriend was describing where the main image gets pushed down below the thumbs. This happens for me only in Firefox and not in IE7. Seems to happen in all my albums.

Changing the window size doesn't seem to help. At first the main image will be to the right of the tumbs but as soon as I move the cursor over the main image it jumps below the thumbs everytime.

screen res: 2560x1600
OS: Vista


Thanks,
Tom

http://tittelbach.smugmug.com/

I'm seeing some significant layout problems where the main image gets laid out below the thumbs in Firefox. I used to only see this while I was resizing the window. Now, I see it at a number of specific window sizes. Screen shots below. Let me know if you can't reproduce it. It's easy for me to reproduce and it's not just an artifact of changing the window size. I can go to a different gallery and the problem persists. There appears to be some particular window sizes where the layout algorithm thinks things will fit in the window and Firefox doesn't think they will.

This looks like a definite problem to me.

http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/234488914-XL.jpg
http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/234489341-XL.jpg
http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/234489641-XL.jpg

[KMCC]

On this help page - http://www.smugmug.com/help/full-of-photos-faq.mg - Dark Sand is not in the list of themes that stretch. I suspect that for now if you want your galleries to stretch that you'll need to choose a different theme.

--- Denise
I'm aware that Dark Sand is not on the list.

Nonetheless, my galleries that are associated with a Smugmug Community are stretching quite nicely. I find that curious and thought that it was worth noting to those who are developing this feature.

[jfriend]

I'm still having the same problem that jfriend was describing where the main image gets pushed down below the thumbs. This happens for me only in Firefox and not in IE7. Seems to happen in all my albums.

Changing the window size doesn't seem to help. At first the main image will be to the right of the tumbs but as soon as I move the cursor over the main image it jumps below the thumbs everytime.

screen res: 2560x1600
OS: Vista


Thanks,
Tom

http://tittelbach.smugmug.com/

I can't reproduce your problem on my Firefox/Vista in your gallery. It's working fine for me. The problem I was previously having was fixed by Smugmug with a code change.

I'd suggest you clear your browser cache (to get rid of all old cached Javascript files) and try again. If it's still happening for you, do you have access to any other computers you can try it on to try to see if it's more likely an interaction with your computer?

Also, you have this line in your CSS:

filmstripMove = 0;

which is a Javascript statement. That does not belong in your CSS and could cause problems. It belongs in the Javascript section of your customization instead.

[kevin.coppalotti]

I'm confused, I've come in late to the party having neglected my Smugmug site for a long time. I read an about 'stretchy' and 'Smugmungous', - are they the same thing?
I can enable 'Smugmungous' at the individual gallery level, but when I try to enable 'stretchy' using the global 'customise' feature I get a vague error message.
I use default display settings, no customisation, win xp, ie6.

FWIW, Smugmungous looks good on my 21" CRT, next problem: about those wacky stats figures.........
Thanks,
Kevin

[Andy]

I'm confused, I've come in late to the party having neglected my Smugmug site for a long time. I read an about 'stretchy' and 'Smugmungous', - are they the same thing?

Hi Kevin!

Stretchy page:
http://www.smugmug.com/help/full-of-photos.mg


Stretchy is the idea that we'll serve up a variable number of thumbs and main image size, based on browser window / screen size. Examples, here:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/3907332#226689247-A-LB
start there and arrow forward to see examples of at different screen sizes :)

SmugMungous is our new display sizes, XL, X2 and X3. Sizes here:
http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-quality

Any images you upload now, automatically get the new sizes made. Older images, you have a photo tools button, to generate your new sizes (Smugmungous! Bulk)

I can enable 'Smugmungous' at the individual gallery level, but when I try to enable 'stretchy' using the global 'customise' feature I get a vague error message.

Can you describe how to get this error? More details - exact gallery link? I'd love to help.

[kevin.coppalotti]

Hi Kevin!


Can you describe how to get this error? More details - exact gallery link? I'd love to help.

Hi Andy, I think I had 'stretchy' working OK with IE6 even tho I had an error message. Then I thought I would be clever and upgrade from IE6 to IE7 and now I have overlapping comments with thumnails. Doh! Screenshot below:

http://maxhr.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p510491839-5.jpg

[Andy]

Hi Andy, I think I had 'stretchy' working OK with IE6 even tho I had an error message. Then I thought I would be clever and upgrade from IE6 to IE7 and now I have overlapping comments with thumnails. Doh! Screenshot below:



I just tried replicating, IE7, can't :( can you do this please, clear your IE7 temp files (cache), close and restart your IE7, and go to this page again and see if you get the same result?

http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/gallery/1499688#71899831

[kevin.coppalotti]

I just tried replicating, IE7, can't :( can you do this please, clear your IE7 temp files (cache), close and restart your IE7, and go to this page again and see if you get the same result?

http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/gallery/1499688#71899831

Thanks Andy, that fixed the problem, working fine now.

[tittelba]

Thanks for the help, jfriend. I cleared my cache, restarted Firefox and it's still happening. I'll try on another computer tomorrow.

I've moved the "filmstripMove = 0;". :D Thanks

Regards,
Tom


I can't reproduce your problem on my Firefox/Vista in your gallery. It's working fine for me. The problem I was previously having was fixed by Smugmug with a code change.

I'd suggest you clear your browser cache (to get rid of all old cached Javascript files) and try again. If it's still happening for you, do you have access to any other computers you can try it on to try to see if it's more likely an interaction with your computer?

Also, you have this line in your CSS:

filmstripMove = 0;

which is a Javascript statement. That does not belong in your CSS and could cause problems. It belongs in the Javascript section of your customization instead.

[tittelba]

I looked at my gallery this morning using my laptop (1280x800, XP) and the problem does not occur. It must be something with my computer/Firefox setting....but what?? Possibliy something I've done wrong in my customization to screw things up on my 2560x1600, Vista machine? :dunno

Tom

Thanks for the help, jfriend. I cleared my cache, restarted Firefox and it's still happening. I'll try on another computer tomorrow.

I've moved the "filmstripMove = 0;". :D Thanks

Regards,
Tom

[{JT}]

I looked at my gallery this morning using my laptop (1280x800, XP) and the problem does not occur. It must be something with my computer/Firefox setting....but what?? Possibliy something I've done wrong in my customization to screw things up on my 2560x1600, Vista machine? :dunno

Tom

Possible that this computer is behind a proxy, like at an office? Possible for you to cut/paste the source code for the page so we can see it?

[tittelba]

The computer that's having the issue is not behind a proxy. I'd be happy to provide my source code but I'm not sure what you're asking for exactly. The source code from my customizations???

www.tittelbach.smugmug.com (http://www.tittelbach.smugmug.com)

Regards,
Tom

Possible that this computer is behind a proxy, like at an office? Possible for you to cut/paste the source code for the page so we can see it?

[Andy]

Any way we could get an order-of-attack on the stretchifying the remaining themes? I know time's always variable, but it would be good to know which will get top priority. I'm interested in Carbonite, personally. Thanks.

Carbonite stretched :thumb
And so did Spoonman and Dark Sand

Thanks for your patience, folks :thumb

[timnosenzo]

Carbonite stretched :thumb

Woohoo! Sweet! :clap

[wellman]

Carbonite stretched :thumb


W00t! :thumb

[tittelba]

I've been looking around at other people’s albums and discovered that this problem (the main image jumping down below the thumbs) is occurring for these albums as well....not just my albums. This seems to happen when I'm at full screen but if I resize the Firefox window it corrects itself?????


Tom


The computer that's having the issue is not behind a proxy. I'd be happy to provide my source code but I'm not sure what you're asking for exactly. The source code from my customizations???

www.tittelbach.smugmug.com (http://www.tittelbach.smugmug.com)

Regards,
Tom

[timnosenzo]

I seem to be having a post-stretchy issue. The "Photo Info" dialog hides behind the image, and once its up, you can't get it to go away (without reloading the page).

22271

[Andy]

I seem to be having a post-stretchy issue. The "Photo Info" dialog hides behind the image, and once its up, you can't get it to go away (without reloading the page).

22271
Fixed... sorry about that!

[timnosenzo]

Fixed... sorry about that!

:beer

[{JT}]

The computer that's having the issue is not behind a proxy. I'd be happy to provide my source code but I'm not sure what you're asking for exactly. The source code from my customizations???

www.tittelbach.smugmug.com (http://www.tittelbach.smugmug.com)

Regards,
Tom

When you are on the affected gallery, could you right click the page and pick "view source" - save the text document it shows you and email it to help@smugmug.com w/ the subj: attn jt

[wellman]

I'm new to the stretchiness since Carbonite is now on the list. Is there any way (maybe via Javascript?) that we can modify the main image size chosen for a particular viewport?

The image below shows my site at my laptop's resolution of 1440x900. At this size, I'd like the main image to be Large instead of Medium. More image, less thumbs!

http://wellman.smugmug.com/photos/239866110-L.jpg

Thanks. :thumb

[wellman]

I've done some more tinkering... Again, on my 1440x900 laptop, I see this...
http://wellman.smugmug.com/photos/239866110-L.jpg

I'd much rather see this...
http://wellman.smugmug.com/photos/239953159-L.jpg

The second result was obtained by pressing F11 (fullscreen). For the record, I can get the normal view to give me the larger main image by hiding the status bar and the bookmarks bar. I guess that gives the viewport just enough height to tell the algorithm to go "Large."

I know you guys are trying to serve lots of needs here. It looks like there's a faction of people who want everything on the page (headers and all) to show up on the screen with no vertical scrolling needed. Then you've got people like me who want every available vertical pixel of my widescreen monitor available for the main image. Some level of user-customization would be great. Maybe a user-specified "delta" from the defaults the image sizing algorithm uses to decide sizes?

Thanks again. Stretchy is what earned my Techie vote for SmugMug! :D

[Andy]

I've done some more tinkering...

Try losing a toolbar, keeping the tabs... see what happens?

[wellman]

Try losing a toolbar, keeping the tabs... see what happens?

I have to hide the Bookmarks toolbar, the Navigation toolbar, and the Status bar (bottom) to get the image to switch over to Large. Bringing back the Status bar (the thinnest of these three) causes the page to re-layout with Medium. Let me know if you need other info.

[Andy]

I have to hide the Bookmarks toolbar, the Navigation toolbar, and the Status bar (bottom) to get the image to switch over to Large. Bringing back the Status bar (the thinnest of these three) causes the page to re-layout with Medium. Let me know if you need other info.
What happens with the default theme (SmugMug Gradient)?

[wellman]

What happens with the default theme (SmugMug Gradient)?

Same story. Medium layout. Hiding both toolbars and the status bar toggles the display to Large layout. Bringing any of the three back toggle the display back to Medium layout.

For good measure, I also did the same test w/ my customizations turned off (i.e. straight-up SmugMug Gradient). Same story.

One other item of interest (but unrelated, I think)... With the Medium layout, SmugMug gradient gives 4x6=24 thumbnails. Carbonite gives 4x7=28. Not a concern, just FYI.

[{JT}]

So I made a few minor adjustments to the calculations and some of our css. I can make a large appear now if you hide the bookmarks toolbar and the status bar. If I force a large even with those put back, the picture goes below the fold (something we were told to avoid earlier in this thread).

I will keep tweaking things though and will consider adding a variable that you can tweak.

I have to hide the Bookmarks toolbar, the Navigation toolbar, and the Status bar (bottom) to get the image to switch over to Large. Bringing back the Status bar (the thinnest of these three) causes the page to re-layout with Medium. Let me know if you need other info.

[wellman]

So I made a few minor adjustments to the calculations and some of our css. I can make a large appear now if you hide the bookmarks toolbar and the status bar. If I force a large even with those put back, the picture goes below the fold (something we were told to avoid earlier in this thread).

I will keep tweaking things though and will consider adding a variable that you can tweak.

Thanks. I'm all for the variable. You've got people who for good reason don't want photos below the fold, and you've got people who want bigger photos, knowing people will just have to scroll the one time. Thanks for taking a look. :thumb

[wellman]

I will keep tweaking things though and will consider adding a variable that you can tweak.

As long as you're considering adding a variable, I'll chime in with a suggestion. :D My particular issue seems to center around the medium/large "trip point" in the layout algorithm. (I assume a viewport height value.) It seems plausible that others might have issues around one of the other trip points.

Perhaps users could have a few variables - one for each trip point. Then we could look at our sites on a few different resolutions and set the breaks just where we want them. As to whether those variables should be absolute numbers or deltas from your defaults is something I would leave to your discretion. :D

Thanks again for considering the issue.

[Erick L]

There is a small calculation bug when you have 1024x768, a fix should be out shortly.

Any fix in the work? I still get 4 thumbs across and a small image at 1024*768. Half my visitors use that resolution. A full screenshot after pressing F11:

[Andy]

Any fix in the work? I still get 4 thumbs across and a small image at 1024*768. Half my visitors use that resolution. A full screenshot after pressing F11:
This was fixed for the site already.

It's likely due to your footer being so high. Try a page without your custom footer and see.

Also, your relaventTitle hack is producing a javascript error (not related to Stretchy).

[Erick L]

I tried with no footer at all and still have a small image. What do you mean "footer too high"? It's this high because the picture is so small.

As for the JS... it's the only thing I found here that doesn't show "powered by Smugmug".

[Andy]

As for the JS... it's the only thing I found here that doesn't show "powered by Smugmug".

Here (http://img.skitch.com/20080107-kueuk8iajhbiihqt97132dp64u.jpg) is javascript error, as reported by Firebug....

[Andy]

I tried with no footer at all and still have a small image. What do you mean "footer too high"? It's this high because the picture is so small.


I meant that your footer is "tall" it takes up a lot of pixels, not that it's high on the page.

Try taking out the 20px bottom margin in your body statement, make it 0px :thumb

EDIT: It's not your footer height at all :) Removing this:


#smugmug, .smugmug #header, .smugmug #footer {
margin-left: 50px;
margin-right: 50px;}

.smugmug #footer {
width: auto;
margin: 0 15px;
}

Makes it 12 thumbs and a medium main image on 1024x768

[Bob_A]

I'm using the Khaki theme as my default and have customized my site

bobanderson.smugmug.com

but the stretchy feature doesn't seem to work properly. I have two problems:

1. For all galleries you need to scroll down to see the "add comment" button and footer.

example: http://bobanderson.smugmug.com/gallery/942435#240322713


2. For all images in portrait you have to scroll down to see the caption.

example: same gallery, image 5.


3. For "portrait" oriented images that I uploaded over a year ago the image size is quite large requiring you to scroll down to see the entire image. If I re-upload the image this is corrected.

example: same gallery, image 2.


I couldn't find a list of themes where "stretchy" doesn't work, so have no idea if it's the theme or some other problem. If khaki is a "stretchy" theme does anyone have some thoughts about what I'm doing wrong?

[Andy]

1. For all galleries you need to scroll down to see the "add comment" button and footer
Expected.

2. For all images in portrait you have to scroll down to see the caption.

example: same gallery, image 5.


Depends on screen size
3. For "portrait" oriented images that I uploaded over a year ago the image size is quite large requiring you to scroll down to see the entire image. If I re-upload the image this is corrected.

example: same gallery, image 2.


I couldn't find a list of themes where "stretchy" doesn't work, so have no idea if it's the theme or some other problem. If khaki is a "stretchy" theme does anyone have some thoughts about what I'm doing wrong?those portrait images were uploaded before we made a decision to make the -L portrait size 600px on the long side (used to be 800px).

[Erick L]

Ok thanks. I only had to reduce the margin to 25px:

#smugmug, .smugmug #header, .smugmug #footer {
margin-left: 25px;
margin-right: 25px;}

... and left the other part in place (I added this today to keep the SM footer centered).

As for the JS... I understand JS as much as chinese, which is not at all. It's something I copied/pasted on the forum. The SM option kept the "powered by Smugmug" part and I don't want it. I'd rather have an error that works. :D

[Bob_A]

Thanks Andy.

By "expected" so you mean that stretchy doesn't work for Khaki or you would expect this for any theme? If it would be this way for any theme is it because I have too much wasted space at the top? I have no idea how to fix this (just looked at your site and see that you use very little for your title and navbar).

For the older images it looks like the only way to make them smaller is to re-upload them. Thanks for the reply about this since I was pulling my hair out looking for the special "option" to make them resize :)

[Andy]

Thanks Andy.

By "expected" so you mean that stretchy doesn't work for Khaki or you would expect this for any theme? If it would be this way for any theme is it because I have too much wasted space at the top? I have no idea how to fix this (just looked at your site and see that you use very little for your title and navbar). Yeah - try using a smaller font size for your header maybe...

[Andy]

I'd rather have an error that works. :D
People don't like page errors, it makes them go crazy :) I'd fix it if I were you, post in the customizing forum and let the experts try and help.

[Bob_A]

Yeah - try using a smaller font size for your header maybe...

I'll mess around with it a bit. There seems to be a ton of space above the font though. I'll have to see if there is a br somewhere.

[{JT}]

When calculating how much height we have to show the main photo, I changed some of the reasoning and added a new variable for Pro's to play with.

I take the available screen height (that is the viewable area of the page - not the window, not your resolution, the actual area that you can scroll) and then I subtract where the top of the photo will start - if the top of that area is greater than 200px (you have a large album description or header) I cap it at 200px. The left over area is what I use to determine what size to show.

Now, power and pro customers can alter this value to be whatever they want. It is a relative change though so it is += whatever the value is that the "educated guess" ended up at. Here is what you can put in your javascript customizations:

SM.SmugMug.config.alterScreenHeight = -50;

This is what will happen if the site says you have 200px of space above the photo:

200 += -50; (150px is the result)

So if you had an available screen height of 750px, we would then subtract 150 - leaving 600px enough for a Large photo. If you did not subtract enough then you would only have enough for a medium size.

Make sense? Realize that by adjusting this value without any additional logic, that you are also adjusting that value for everyone visiting your site. If you wanted to do it only for you; I would put the following in your footer:


if (YD.hasClass(document.body,'loggedIn') {
SM.SmugMug.config.alterScreenHeight = -50;
}


(add script tags around the above)

Let me know if this makes sense, or if there can be any improvements.

[wellman]

When calculating how much height we have to show the main photo, I changed some of the reasoning and added a new variable for Pro's to play with.

Works beautifully! Thank you so much. I am now totally satisfied with the look of my SmugMug pages. If only the photos were better. :huh

Thanks again. :thumb

[PBolchover]

Now, pros can alter this value to be whatever they want.

Sounds good, but why restrict it to pros? Smugmug has had a long-standing policy that Power Users can do unlimited customisation: the pro-only features relate to added-value for people who make a living from photography.

[Andy]

Sounds good, but why restrict it to pros? Smugmug has had a long-standing policy that Power Users can do unlimited customisation: the pro-only features relate to added-value for people who make a living from photography.
It is not restricted to pros - power and pro customers can use the new variable.

I fixed JT's post :)

[thehikingdude]

First, let me say :clap.

Second, mine didn't work at first because I had this:

SM.SmugMug.config.size = 'large';

in my javascript to force large style. Once removed, it's fine. Just an FYI in case anyone else had this hack.

-Scott

As usual this forum saves the day. Thanks!!!

[MichaelKirk]

I just tried out the new (to me) stretchy feature and having some issues. On my laptop 1024x768 the main photo is being viewed as Small with 5x3 thumbs. How to I change it to show a medium main image and smaller thumbs - 3x5
Update - on my desktop (20")monitor - same issue - main photo is viewed as "Small"
How do I have the main image viewable as MEDIUM. To me - if you can't, the stretch feature is worthless (My Opinion) so I hope there is an easy work around.

http://MLKImages.smugmug.com/photos/247204220-M.jpg

Also another problem occurs when I shrink the browser window and then increase it back to full size - the gallery images stay small and I end up with a lot of dead space.
http://MLKImages.smugmug.com/photos/247204242-M.jpg


Screen print gallery
http://mlkimages.smugmug.com/gallery/4226650/1/247204204

sample gallery
http://mlkimages.smugmug.com/gallery/3449764#193795987

Michael

[Andy]

I just tried out the new (to me) stretchy feature and having some issues. On my laptop 1024x768 the main photo is being viewed as Small with 5x3 thumbs. How to I change it to show a medium main image and smaller thumbs - 3x5
Update - on my desktop (20")monitor - same issue - main photo is viewed as "Small"
How do I have the main image viewable as MEDIUM. To me - if you can't, the stretch feature is worthless (My Opinion) so I hope there is an easy work around.

http://MLKImages.smugmug.com/photos/247204220-M.jpg

Also another problem occurs when I shrink the browser window and then increase it back to full size - the gallery images stay small and I end up with a lot of dead space.
http://MLKImages.smugmug.com/photos/247204242-M.jpg


Screen print gallery
http://mlkimages.smugmug.com/gallery/4226650/1/247204204

sample gallery
http://mlkimages.smugmug.com/gallery/3449764#193795987

Michael

Hmmm... here's my 1024x768 on Windows XP:
http://img.skitch.com/20080126-ekmqd1g93pai935m98i9rtt7by.jpg

I wonder if it's your double-high toolbar at the bottom that's causing this? Try making that just a single row height and see if that helps.

[MichaelKirk]

Nope,
My desktop has a single bar at the bottom and I get the same thing. Small main image - thumbnains are 4 wide by 3 tall.....so a lot of dead space on my page.

MLK

[Andy]

Nope,
My desktop has a single bar at the bottom and I get the same thing. Small main image - thumbnains are 4 wide by 3 tall.....so a lot of dead space on my page.

MLK

See if this helps?

http://img.skitch.com/20080126-j9fe5t3ekispx69fgx8g1qs1dq.jpg

[bigwebguy]

Nope,
My desktop has a single bar at the bottom and I get the same thing. Small main image - thumbnains are 4 wide by 3 tall.....so a lot of dead space on my page.

MLKYour toolbars are causing the problem. Stretchy will attempt to give you the largest image it can fit in the viewport (the area in your browser where the page is) without vertical scrolling. You effectively have 5 toolbars (file, navigation, address, google and the status bar at the bottom) which are shrinking the viewport. You have a few options:

1) drag the address bar to be on the same line as the file, edit etc. bar.
2) use small icons for the navigation bar

Those will allow you to keep the same toolbars you currently have while increasing the viewport height.

As for the dead space when you shrink and resize, that shouldn't happen. We'll look into that.

[TalkieT]

I recall seeing something about this somewhere, perhaps even earlier in this thread - but I can't seem to locate a specific answer as to whether it's a bug in the theme, in stretchy, or a pecularity with my PC (Vista, FF, 24" LCD).

The site in question is www.nzsnaps.com (talkiet.smugmug.com).

it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen regularly. I can force the page to render correctly by adjusting the window size by any amount, but the problem often comes back after going to the next page etc...

Any hints or tips please? I love the idea of Stretchy, but the implementation as it works for me is so frustrating!

Cheers - Neil Gardner
www.nzsnaps.com

[tittelba]

This is still consistantly happening for me. Only in Firefox and not only on my Smugmug site but many others. So far there's been no solution that I know of. It only happens on my Vista desktop computer and not on my XP laptop.

___________________________________________________
I recall seeing something about this somewhere, perhaps even earlier in this thread - but I can't seem to locate a specific answer as to whether it's a bug in the theme, in stretchy, or a pecularity with my PC (Vista, FF, 24" LCD).

The site in question is www.nzsnaps.com (http://www.nzsnaps.com/) (talkiet.smugmug.com).

it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen regularly. I can force the page to render correctly by adjusting the window size by any amount, but the problem often comes back after going to the next page etc...

Any hints or tips please? I love the idea of Stretchy, but the implementation as it works for me is so frustrating!


_________________________________________________________
I'm still having the same problem that jfriend was describing where the main image gets pushed down below the thumbs. This happens for me only in Firefox and not in IE7. Seems to happen in all my albums.

Changing the window size doesn't seem to help. At first the main image will be to the right of the tumbs but as soon as I move the cursor over the main image it jumps below the thumbs everytime.

screen res: 2560x1600
OS: Vista


Thanks,
Tom

http://tittelbach.smugmug.com/

[Andy]

This is still consistanly happening for me. Only in Firefox and not only on my Smugmug site but many others. So far there's been no solution that I know of. It only happens on my Vista desktop computer and not on my XP laptop.

___________________________________________________
I recall seeing something about this somewhere, perhaps even earlier in this thread - but I can't seem to locate a specific answer as to whether it's a bug in the theme, in stretchy, or a pecularity with my PC (Vista, FF, 24" LCD).

The site in question is www.nzsnaps.com (http://www.nzsnaps.com/) (talkiet.smugmug.com).

it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen regularly. I can force the page to render correctly by adjusting the window size by any amount, but the problem often comes back after going to the next page etc...

Any hints or tips please? I love the idea of Stretchy, but the implementation as it works for me is so frustrating!


_________________________________________________________

IT's because of errors in talkiet's customizing. I'm fixing them right now.

[Andy]

I recall seeing something about this somewhere, perhaps even earlier in this thread - but I can't seem to locate a specific answer as to whether it's a bug in the theme, in stretchy, or a pecularity with my PC (Vista, FF, 24" LCD).

The site in question is www.nzsnaps.com (talkiet.smugmug.com).

it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen regularly. I can force the page to render correctly by adjusting the window size by any amount, but the problem often comes back after going to the next page etc...

Any hints or tips please? I love the idea of Stretchy, but the implementation as it works for me is so frustrating!

Cheers - Neil Gardner
www.nzsnaps.com
Hi Neil,

You had a bunch of unclosed DIV and UL tags in your customizing, the favicon code was in your header, I put that in your head tag where it belongs, and most importantly, you had extra margin left and right in your CSS body statement - that was causing Firefox to render the page wrong for your site. I fixed all of these (and commented out the margin-left and margin-right in your body statement).

:wave should be all better now?

[TalkieT]

Hi Neil,

You had a bunch of unclosed DIV and UL tags in your customizing, the favicon code was in your header, I put that in your head tag where it belongs, and most importantly, you had extra margin left and right in your CSS body statement - that was causing Firefox to render the page wrong for your site. I fixed all of these (and commented out the margin-left and margin-right in your body statement).

:wave should be all better now?

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I put up gladly with some of the little Smugmug foibles. Name one other company that gives this kind of support!

Thanks Andy, it sure looks fixed now. Thanks for this. I know enough about web design to be dangerous :-)

Cheers - Neil Gardner

[Andy]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I put up gladly with some of the little Smugmug foibles. Name one other company that gives this kind of support!

Thanks Andy, it sure looks fixed now. Thanks for this. I know enough about web design to be dangerous :-)

Cheers - Neil GardnerYW Neil, glad to be of help :)

[jkhasson]

This is still consistanly happening for me. Only in Firefox and not only on my Smugmug site but many others. So far there's been no solution that I know of. It only happens on my Vista desktop computer and not on my XP laptop.

___________________________________________________
I recall seeing something about this somewhere, perhaps even earlier in this thread - but I can't seem to locate a specific answer as to whether it's a bug in the theme, in stretchy, or a pecularity with my PC (Vista, FF, 24" LCD).

The site in question is www.nzsnaps.com (http://www.nzsnaps.com/) (talkiet.smugmug.com).

it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen regularly. I can force the page to render correctly by adjusting the window size by any amount, but the problem often comes back after going to the next page etc...

Any hints or tips please? I love the idea of Stretchy, but the implementation as it works for me is so frustrating!


_________________________________________________________
Well folks, it still is happening to all my galleries. It is only occurring in Firefox. I'm running XP. Opera and IE7 are okay. My screen resolution is 1680x1050. I'm a Power User, but with no customization at this point. Here is a gallery you can check: Warbirds. (http://JonathanHasson.smugmug.com/gallery/1491827/1/71454266)

The problem only occurs in when the window is expanded to full screen. On any size less than full screen, the page renders correctly.

I've emptied the cache, restarted firefox, gotten rid of all my toolbars in FF, but nothing helps. The only solution I've found is to no view my window in fullscreen mode, but that negates the benefits of a larger, wider screen!

You guys are great, and the coding is awesome, but this "bug" is frustrating!

Thanks for any help!

[Andy]

Well folks, it still is happening to all my galleries. It is only occurring in Firefox. I'm running XP. Opera and IE7 are okay. My screen resolution is 1680x1050. I'm a Power User, but with no customization at this point. Here is a gallery you can check: Warbirds. (http://JonathanHasson.smugmug.com/gallery/1491827/1/71454266)

The problem only occurs in when the window is expanded to full screen. On any size less than full screen, the page renders correctly.

I've emptied the cache, restarted firefox, gotten rid of all my toolbars in FF, but nothing helps. The only solution I've found is to no view my window in fullscreen mode, but that negates the benefits of a larger, wider screen!

You guys are great, and the coding is awesome, but this "bug" is frustrating!

Thanks for any help!
Can you take a screenshot of your entire FF when it's at full screen please? Post it here. Thanks!

[jkhasson]

Can you take a screenshot of your entire FF when it's at full screen please? Post it here. Thanks!
Interestingly, I can't provide that tonight. Using FF on my laptop undocked, the screen resolution is at 1280x800 and the pages render correctly. No problems at all with stacking of the main photo underneath the thumbnails.

I checked on my wife's computer using FF, and she doesn't have a problem either at a resolution of 1280x960.

SO, it appears to be an issue, at least for me, only at a screen resolution of 1680x1050. I'll be sure to upload a screenshot tomorrow once I connect back to my external monitor at work.

Thanks again!

[jkhasson]

Interestingly, I can't provide that tonight. Using FF on my laptop undocked, the screen resolution is at 1280x800 and the pages render correctly. No problems at all with stacking of the main photo underneath the thumbnails.

I checked on my wife's computer using FF, and she doesn't have a problem either at a resolution of 1280x960.

SO, it appears to be an issue, at least for me, only at a screen resolution of 1680x1050. I'll be sure to upload a screenshot tomorrow once I connect back to my external monitor at work.

Thanks again!
Okay, here are my screenshots from my 1680x1050 work computer. I hope these help to get to the bottom of the issue.

The first is a shot of a "minimal thumbnails" example:

http://JonathanHasson.smugmug.com/photos/252178463_7M4bs-M.jpg

Here is a shot of a "numerous thumbnails" example - top of the page only:

http://JonathanHasson.smugmug.com/photos/252178466_aGEtB-M.jpg

and the bottom of the above page:

http://JonathanHasson.smugmug.com/photos/252178464_wZGWe-M.jpg

Thanks again for the help.

[ivar]

For jkhasson and tittelba, can you give us some more specifics? :ear
The browser and its exact version in combination with the operating system would be a great! Thanks! :thumb

[tittelba]

Vista Ultimate with Firefox 2.0.0.12 or beta 3.0b2.

Thanks,
Tom


For jkhasson and tittelba, can you give us some more specifics? :ear
The browser and its exact version in combination with the operating system would be a great! Thanks! :thumb

[Shima]

I was wondering if they'll ever be making the all thumbs view "stretchy" so we can get the maximum thumbs on our monitors. Is this in the plans for the future of stretchy?

[jfriend]

I was wondering if they'll ever be making the all thumbs view "stretchy" so we can get the maximum thumbs on our monitors. Is this in the plans for the future of stretchy?

I have seen some mention of "other views going stetchy", but as always no timing. I'd agree that the all thumbs view is a stretchy natural (and the algorithm for all-thumbs stretchy should be pretty straightforward).

[Andy]

I was wondering if they'll ever be making the all thumbs view "stretchy" so we can get the maximum thumbs on our monitors. Is this in the plans for the future of stretchy?

You can do it yourself :)

Sample gallery (put it in all thumbs mode)

http://andytheme.smugmug.com/gallery/2602568_f5qBE/1/137259315_pkF7S


Screenshot (http://img.skitch.com/20080210-8syrm2qn4mdht14kgpu56u4ybd.jpg).

/* stretchy css for allthumbs */

#allthumbs, #allthumbs #photos {
margin-left: 15px !important;
margin-right: 15px !important;
min-width: 755px !important;
width: auto !important;
_width: expression(document.documentElement.clientWidth < 790? "760px" : "auto") !important;
}

[Shima]

Fantastic! Thanks :)

You can do it yourself :)

Sample gallery (put it in all thumbs mode)

http://andytheme.smugmug.com/gallery/2602568_f5qBE/1/137259315_pkF7S


Screenshot (http://img.skitch.com/20080210-8syrm2qn4mdht14kgpu56u4ybd.jpg).

/* stretchy css for allthumbs */

#allthumbs, #allthumbs #photos {
margin-left: 15px !important;
margin-right: 15px !important;
min-width: 755px !important;
width: auto !important;
_width: expression(document.documentElement.clientWidth < 790? "760px" : "auto") !important;
}

[jkhasson]

For jkhasson and tittelba, can you give us some more specifics? :ear
The browser and its exact version in combination with the operating system would be a great! Thanks! :thumb
Sorry for the late reply. Been traveling...

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.11 with Windows XP SP2

Thanks again for the help!

[jkhasson]

Sorry for the late reply. Been traveling...

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.11 with Windows XP SP2

Thanks again for the help!
A little more info on this strange behavior...the main image is not kicked down to the postion below the thumbnails until after a window scroll bar is inserted on the right side of the window. It appears that if any screen is rendered in SmugMug that exceeds the window dimension, the main picture is kicked to below the thumbnails in a type of "wrapping" function and the page scroll bar inserted.

Resizing the windows down from full screen effectively resizes the main image and the main image gets put back in the correct page position AND the window scroll bar goes away.

This windows scroll bar seems to be the culprit for kicking the image down on the page. Now, what is causing the image to not size correctly and initiate the scroll bar?

Thanks.

[papajay]

I've always preferred journal style for many of my galleries (like vacation diaries). I'm assuming (hoping) that "stretchiness" will eventually be achieved in journal style...same basic vertical scroll layout (with alternating left and right registered images and captions placed to the side of the image) as it's always been, but with much larger images than currently formatted.

But after seeing that CSS can already be used for "All thumbs" style...I have to ask... is there a corresponding CSS for the Journal style to make it stretchy???