PDA

View Full Version : Option to disable the iphone 'backdoor'?


stuartb
Mar-27-2008, 05:50 AM
Having gone to the bother of hiding all my category names from my homepage using CSS it is mildly annoying that people can simply browse ALL my 'public' galleries by adding iphone to the url eg www.myname.smugmug.com/iphone (http://www.myname.smugmug.com/iphone)

As a Power User I would like a way to 'opt out' of my galleries being offered up to iphone browsers in such an unfiltered way. I would like the same access control that I have via my 'normal' smugmug homepage (ie CSS)

I dont want to password all my galleries . . so please dont suggest that . . I am happy that my categories are more or less 'hidden' on my homepage using CSS, I would just like to disable the iphone 'back door'.

Some sort of 'add to iphone' option in Gallery Tools would be fine . . a bit like an 'IPhone Sharegroup', would give ME the choice as to what galleries are 'iphone visible'

Andy
Mar-27-2008, 05:52 AM
Hello, this is not a "back door" since you have public galleries. Back door implies that there is a security hole, so your thread title is a bit misleading.

I'm just saying.

mbellot
Mar-27-2008, 07:44 AM
Hello, this is not a "back door" since you have public galleries. Back door implies that there is a security hole, so your thread title is a bit misleading.

I'm just saying.

OK, then how about an option to simply disable the iphone link globally for a user account (like hello world)?

I tried to get around it with a vanity url, but no luck.

I'm in the same boat as Stuart, using one of the "hacks" to hide specific categories from casual visitors, so this is a bit disconcerting.

Andy
Mar-27-2008, 07:48 AM
OK, then how about an option to simply disable the iphone link globally for a user account (like hello world)?

I tried to get around it with a vanity url, but no luck.

I'm in the same boat as Stuart, using one of the "hacks" to hide specific categories from casual visitors, so this is a bit disconcerting.
I'm sorry I don't have a better answer for you now, but making galleries private will stop someone from seeing them on an iphone.

cdonovan
Mar-27-2008, 08:23 AM
:huh what the .....

If someone goes into my galleries, adds iphone it pops up every single one of my photos on the site.....unless it's password protected? What's more, I see when you look at the photos that they aren't right click protected and allow you to download them right to the computer:huh What is the work around for this:rolleyes:scratch

Andy
Mar-27-2008, 08:26 AM
:huh what the .....

If someone goes into my galleries, adds iphone it pops up every single one of my photos on the site.....unless it's password protected? What's more, I see when you look at the photos that they aren't right click protected and allow you to download them right to the computer:huh What is the work around for this:rolleyes:scratchNO, and see, the original poster has brought forth uncertainty from you.

/iphone will allow your public galleries to be seen. Unlisted & private galleries, no.

Try it: http://cdonovan.smugmug.com/iphone/

denisegoldberg
Mar-27-2008, 08:27 AM
... I see when you look at the photos that they aren't right click protected and allow you to download them right to the computer. What is the work around for this
Right click protection is only available within your smugmug galleries. So if you make your images available elsewhere by allowing external links and those photos are displayed in the context of another application (for example, if you show a photo on a blog, or in a forum post), there isn't any right click protection. That's outside of smugmug's control.

You can disallow external access.
If you still want to allow external access, then it's probably a good idea to watermark your images. If you want to have external access for some but not all photos, you might consider putting copies of those photos in a separate gallery that is enabled for external access rather than allowing access to the full gallery.

--- Denise

stuartb
Mar-27-2008, 08:46 AM
Extreme apologies Andy, I agree the word 'back door' is not entrely appropriate, a genuine error on my part and no intent to flame.

Leaving that to one side, I do feel my point remains valid. Allowing straight unfiltered access to my galleries (by-passing my CSS) de-values the benefit of my 'customization' (which was one of the reasons why I paid for the upgrade to Power User).

I am not complaining, just querying whether iphone access could somehow be made 'optional' to Smugmug customers.

cdonovan
Mar-27-2008, 08:47 AM
NO, and see, the original poster has brought forth uncertainty from you.

/iphone will allow your public galleries to be seen. Unlisted & private galleries, no.

Try it: http://cdonovan.smugmug.com/iphone/

Well maybe I am jumping the gun but I went into a few galleries from that iphone link. Galleries that are right click protected and galleries that I have for my clients to see and that I sell from them. They are watermarked, but I am able to open them no problem, easy sharing and external links are turned off

This gallery For example http://cdonovanphotos.smugmug.com/gallery/2819944_WAd7S

Andy
Mar-27-2008, 09:00 AM
Well maybe I am jumping the gun but I went into a few galleries from that iphone link. Galleries that are right click protected and galleries that I have for my clients to see and that I sell from them. They are watermarked, but I am able to open them no problem, easy sharing and external links are turned off

This gallery For example http://cdonovanphotos.smugmug.com/gallery/2819944_WAd7S
Log out, Christine?

cdonovan
Mar-27-2008, 09:50 AM
I opened firefox, and I'm not logged into smugmug from there. Same thing. The galleries are not password protected, but in the customizer the external links and easy share is off. Is there another button or setting that I am missing? These photos are essentially free for the taking:scratch

Allen
Mar-27-2008, 11:12 AM
I opened firefox, and I'm not logged into smugmug from there. Same thing. The galleries are not password protected, but in the customizer the external links and easy share is off. Is there another button or setting that I am missing? These photos are essentially free for the taking:scratch
Has nothing to so with that, the photos are being viewed in a browser with
the phone. The pages are just formated differently. Same photos you'd see in
any browser.

Andy
Mar-27-2008, 11:22 AM
I opened firefox, and I'm not logged into smugmug from there. Same thing. The galleries are not password protected, but in the customizer the external links and easy share is off. Is there another button or setting that I am missing? These photos are essentially free for the taking:scratch
Yknow what? I have to look into that - stay tuned, thanks Christine.

stuartb
Mar-27-2008, 11:36 AM
I can see quite a number of horse albums on your site Christine . . . using the /iphone at the end . . and obviously I am not logged in. I am guessing these are 'public' albums? The loss of right click protection is understandable (and cant people just screen-grab anyway?). My original point is that the /iphone version of public pics should be 'optional', because it works differently . . . especially if we have used CSS to hide categories (or right click protection) on our 'normal' homepage. It would be good if 'external links' being off was all that was needed to disable the iphone view.

cdonovan
Mar-27-2008, 11:45 AM
They Are "public" albums in that they do not require a password to access them. They are not password protected as it allows the competitors the option to view them at their own leisure.

Dare I ask how long this "feature" has been available:dunno I for one want to opt out of it.

ETA, thanks for looking into it Andy.

stuartb
Mar-27-2008, 11:57 PM
Christine, its not a 'feature' as such, and its not a security breach or failing on the part of Smugmug. Its just a special page to display your public galleries in a format that iphones can display nicely. The problem is (for me at least) that if you have chosen to use CSS customization to 'hide' all your public photos on your 'normal' smugmug page (by not showing categories and running a slideshow for example) . . then the iphone format page undermines that as we have no ability to shield our public photos on the iphone page. Any browser can view the iphone page . . not just iphones.

It would be nice to have another level of control whereby only public galleries with 'external links' activated would show on the iphone page.

jeff318
Mar-28-2008, 03:59 AM
I agree with the OP. Although the iPhone interface is nice, it does not work well with what I am doing with Smugmug. An option to disable would be great.

cdonovan
Mar-28-2008, 07:01 AM
Thank you for looking into it Andy.

This is seriously bothering me. Even more so since I've done a little forum search and see topics about it back as far as October of last year.

Can I ask exactly what the purpose of people having access to my galleries by iphone is?

I don't have an iphone, hell at Christmas, they weren't even being sold in Canada. Does this "feature" allow anyone with an iphone to just pop into my(or anyones) gallery and use the pictures? and for what use (screen saver, backgrounds, printing) What resolution do they appear in on the phones. Is this something that is advertised for the iphone consumer and owners. How and where is this being marketed? I know that smugmug is against emails and spam, but something like this is pretty important to warn about or mention, honestly I don't have time to spend reading through the forum for updates and possible problems. and alerts, and from Andy's reply it doesn't look like the team was even aware of the possibility of people lifting pictures from secure galleries.

The nature of my work, that I actually get paid for depends on the security of the photos online, why buy it when they can take it. This was originally why I choose smugmug. Some may think I'm flying off the handle here, really I'm not, I just need some answers.

Allen
Mar-28-2008, 07:24 AM
Thank you for looking into it Andy.

This is seriously bothering me. Even more so since I've done a little forum search and see topics about it back as far as October of last year.

Can I ask exactly what the purpose of people having access to my galleries by iphone is?

I don't have an iphone, hell at Christmas, they weren't even being sold in Canada. Does this "feature" allow anyone with an iphone to just pop into my(or anyones) gallery and use the pictures? and for what use (screen saver, backgrounds, printing) What resolution do they appear in on the phones. Is this something that is advertised for the iphone consumer and owners. How and where is this being marketed? I know that smugmug is against emails and spam, but something like this is pretty important to warn about or mention, honestly I don't have time to spend reading through the forum for updates and possible problems. and alerts, and from Andy's reply it doesn't look like the team was even aware of the possibility of people lifting pictures from secure galleries.

The nature of my work, that I actually get paid for depends on the security of the photos online, why buy it when they can take it. This was originally why I choose smugmug. Some may think I'm flying off the handle here, really I'm not, I just need some answers.
I just tried saving one of my photos on a pocketpc/cell phone and the file is
only 32.1kb so they are very small. These devices only have a screen
display of about 2" diag. so don't need much of a file size for display.

Not anything to worry about.

mbellot
Mar-28-2008, 07:56 AM
I just tried saving one of my photos on a pocketpc/cell phone and the file is
only 32.1kb so they are very small. These devices only have a screen
display of about 2" diag. so don't need much of a file size for display.

Not anything to worry about.

Allen, I'd say that was one man's opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be happy to just grab an image to use as a wallpaper on their phone and skip purchasing anything.

I'm with stuart on this one. The iphone page circumvents customization set up in the CSS section, we should have an option to "opt out" of access to our site via the iphone interface - especially since it can be accessed from any browser.

External links would be a good "already there" variable to decide what is and is not available to the iphone interface if there is no plan to allow users to opt out all together.

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 08:01 AM
The iphone page circumvents customization set up in the CSS section, we should have an option to "opt out" of access to our site via the iphone interface - especially since it can be accessed from any browser.

Not sure I agree with this part.

I do agree that the images should be protected, we'll see what can be done :thumb

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 08:06 AM
. . the possibility of people lifting pictures from secure galleries.

Christine, in fairness to Smugmug, if you set pictures as 'public' then they are not 'secure galleries'. This doesnt get us away from my original point that the way your images are available to iphones is certainly different and doesnt suit everyone, especially those who have customised their front end.

I am sure they are looking at the options . . . especially as others have requested access to passworded galleries via iphone.

Allen - the iphone resolution may only be 320x480 however the images can be 'zoomed-in' on the device, so the downloaded images are therefore much much larger . .just check http://www.photosbyat.com/iphone/#_home and you will see many of your images available as 600 x 800 or larger.

Allen
Mar-28-2008, 08:10 AM
... especially since it can be accessed from any browser..
I can then just switch to the browser (remove the /iphone link) on the phone
and get the same thing in a regular page format of those little bitty photos.
On a pc I can screen capture the much larger version of the photo. I really
don't see what the problem is, other then what's been available all along.

cdonovan
Mar-28-2008, 08:24 AM
I'm answering a few of my own questions here...

http://www.appsafari.com/photos/1195/smugmug/

Access and browse public SmugMug albums on your iPhone with a great iPhone interface. Search feature allows searching for users or photos. See the most popular photos of the day, or of all time. Also features browsing for popular keywords of the day or of all time. The photos are resized on-the-fly by on the servers to perfectly fit the iPhone and the app also takes into account orientation (portrait / landscape) and shows you a different resolution. To speed up browsing only a few of your albums and photos are shown on first load and you can load more data as needed.
If you are a SmugMug member, you can get to your personal public photos by going to http://YOURNAME.smugmug.com/iphone/ . For example you can go to http://concours.smugmug.com/iphone/.

http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/28/private-galleries-can-be-accessed-at-smugmug/#more-3020


<hr> <!-- google_ad_section_start --> Private Galleries can be accessed at Smugmug (http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/28/private-galleries-can-be-accessed-at-smugmug/)

Posted by Martin (http://www.ghacks.net/author/martin/) in Hacking (http://www.ghacks.net/category/hacking/), Online Services (http://www.ghacks.net/category/online-services/), Security (http://www.ghacks.net/category/security/) <!-- Generated by Simple Tags 1.3.9.1 - http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/simple-tags --> Tags: download pictures (http://www.ghacks.net/tag/download-pictures/), picture gallery (http://www.ghacks.net/tag/picture-gallery/), private galleries (http://www.ghacks.net/tag/private-galleries/), smugmug (http://www.ghacks.net/tag/smugmug/)

28
Jan


******** type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-5406364303442190"; /* 336x280, created 2/8/08, black url */ google_ad_slot = "9050475660"; google_ad_width = 336; google_ad_height = 280; //--> <!--******** ******** type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"--> <!--********<iframe name="google_ads_frame" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-5406364303442190&dt=1206721182364&lmt=1206721180&output=html&slotname=9050475660&correlator=1206721182364&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ghacks.net%2F2008%2F01%2F28%2 Fprivate-galleries-can-be-accessed-at-smugmug%2F%23more-3020&ref=http%3A%2F%2F64.233.169.104%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcac he%3ApdGY8tXyILoJ%3Awww.ghacks.net%2Fcategory%2Fha cking%2F%2Biphone%2Bsmugmug%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk% 26cd%3D29%26gl%3Dca&frm=0&cc=100&ga_vid=144323768.1206721182&ga_sid=1206721182&ga_hid=880310409&flash=9.0.115&u_h=1024&u_w=1280&u_ah=994&u_aw=1280&u_cd=32&u_tz=-180&u_his=50&u_java=true&u_nplug=19&u_nmime=93" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="280" scrolling="no" width="336"-->

If you would use an image host (http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/28/private-galleries-can-be-accessed-at-smugmug/#), put up some of your images and set them to private, would you expect them to be still accessible by anyone ? This is apparently the case over at Smugmug (http://www.smugmug.com/) where a private setting simply means that the pictures and image galleries are not directly linked from the homepage (http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/28/private-galleries-can-be-accessed-at-smugmug/#) anymore but can still be accessed by simply entering the url directly in the browser address bar or download manager.
The real problem arises because files are named sequentially at Smugmug which means that anyone with just a little bit of technical knowledge will be able to download all images from all galleries set to public and private. The only galleries that are not accessible are the password protected ones obviously.
The urls for the galleries can be accessed by opening a url starting with http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/*, for example http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/1000, http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/1001 in your browser. Pictures can be accessed directly by loading http://www.smugmug.com/photos/*-M.jpg in your browser where * is a number between 1 and x. So, everyone can access pictures like http://www.smugmug.com/photos/1000-M.jpg, http://www.smugmug.com/photos/10001-M.jpg and so on.
Google Blogoscope (http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-01-28-n59.html) who discovered this loophole contacted Smugmug and received a reply that was not that satisfactory. According to CEO Don MacAskill this is the intended way it should work:First of all, we view security (http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/28/private-galleries-can-be-accessed-at-smugmug/#) and privacy as two separate, but related, issues. Security is like locking your front door (no-one can get in with out a key) and privacy is like closing your window drapes (no-one can look in from the outside, but you can tell people where you live and they can visit without a key).
At SmugMug, the feature you’re talking about, private galleries, falls under the privacy umbrella, not security. It’s intentionally designed so that you can “tell other people” about your photos (share a URL in an email (http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/28/private-galleries-can-be-accessed-at-smugmug/#), embed or hyperlink on your blog (http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/28/private-galleries-can-be-accessed-at-smugmug/#) or message forum, etc) without having to share something like a password. Only people you’ve shared this URL with can find the gallery and/or photos in question.

mbellot
Mar-28-2008, 08:38 AM
Not sure I agree with this part.

I do agree that the images should be protected, we'll see what can be done :thumb
Andy,

I'm sorry, but which part don't you agree with?

The /iphone interface most certainly circumvents both java and CSS customization (ignores/drops may be a better choice of words for better viewing on such a small screen).


I can then just switch to the browser (remove the /iphone link) on the phone and get the same thing in a regular page format of those little bitty photos.
Allen, I guess the key question then would be whether or not images that are viewable in the /iphone interface suddenly disappear because I have used the hack to hide categories. If my site is accessed "normally" from an iphone browser (not using the /iphone interface) will my CSS and java customizations be active?

If so, then I would really prefer to be able to just turn the /iphone interface off completely via an option in the control panel.

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 08:39 AM
Christine, and all:

I've put in a request to make it so /iphone from a browser won't allow saving. Thanks for pointing this out!

denisegoldberg
Mar-28-2008, 08:41 AM
I'm answering a few of my own questions here...

http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/28/private-galleries-can-be-accessed-at-smugmug/#more-3020
But that private galleries blog was clearly addressed with the February 8th security and privacy release - http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=83916&highlight=privacy+security. And the galleries that used to be tagged as private are not assigned the more correct name of unlisted.

--- Denise

mbellot
Mar-28-2008, 08:42 AM
Christine, and all:

I've put in a request to make it so /iphone from a browser won't allow saving. Thanks for pointing this out!

How about an option to turn it (/iphone) off completely?

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 09:03 AM
How about an option to turn it (/iphone) off completely?
I really think this would set a bad trend going. If you have public galleries, there's no big deal, IMO.

cdonovan
Mar-28-2008, 09:04 AM
Christine, in fairness to Smugmug, if you set pictures as 'public' then they are not 'secure galleries'. This doesnt get us away from my original point that the way your images are available to iphones is certainly different and doesnt suit everyone, especially those who have customised their front end.

I am sure they are looking at the options . . . especially as others have requested access to passworded galleries via iphone.

Allen - the iphone resolution may only be 320x480 however the images can be 'zoomed-in' on the device, so the downloaded images are therefore much much larger . .just check http://www.photosbyat.com/iphone/#_home and you will see many of your images available as 600 x 800 or larger.
In my(what I refer to as) secure galleries, I have external links turned OFF and have easy share turned off, they are watermarked and right click protected. They are not hidden or password protected(or rather before today) to allow my clients the ability to find them easier without waiting for me to get back to them with an email about the password. Personally, if I was my client and came up against a password protected gallery, I'd probably loose interest and wonder why the password was needed, I'd wonder if it was a tactic to capture my email address for marketing purposes etc. Is there not a whole page (http://www.smugmug.com/help/image-protection) dedicated to selling security when signing up for a pro account????

I know that any joe blow can go and do a screen capture, but this is something advertised and promoted to iphone consumers.

I guess what I don't understand is why we are allowing iphone browsers the ability to go and lift our photos (regardless of the size of file) What is different from this and free stock images?

Am also trying to figure out when this feature was implemented, are there any other extensions for products that I should know about that allow similar access?

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 09:05 AM
I guess what I don't understand is why we are allowing iphone browsers the ability to go and lift our photos (regardless of the size of file)

This isn't true. The /iphone respects the file sizes you limit in your gallery settings. We need to address the right click when it's used in a non-iphone browser.

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 09:06 AM
Am also trying to figure out when this feature was implemented, are there any other extensions for products that I should know about that allow similar access?
Do you read our release notes? :ear there's a link to them on www.smugmug.com and also in your news tab, control panel.

cdonovan
Mar-28-2008, 09:13 AM
I really think this would set a bad trend going. If you have public galleries, there's no big deal, IMO.

A bad trend for who? For us your consumer, or the iphone users? Is there some hand shaking going on that would upset iphone if smumug account holders actually had the ability to control what the iphone users are able to do.

Why not allow the pro account users that ability to opt out of sharing photos. The pro account users are traditionally ones who are trying to sell their photos for income, and not give them away. :rolleyes

So I can try to see the flip side of the coin, can I ask the reasoning behind not giving us the option to just opt out?

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 09:18 AM
Christine - according to the iphone webapps page http://www.apple.com/webapps/entertainment/smugmug.html the smugmug iphone pages were made available circa Oct 2007. "search, browse and enjoy 180 million photos on your phone" say Apple.

Allen - if you dont use any CSS on your regular Smugmug homepage then you are right, it makes no difference.
but . . . . if you DO hide any categories on your homepage (or on any other of your smgmug pages) using the CSS tools available to Power/Pro users, then there IS a big difference, because the sophistication of the CSS is ignored by the iphone pages.

Andy - Leaving aside the fact that the Smugmug's javascript right-click 'protection' can be circumvented by hitting 'Print Screen' (as all but the newest newbie must know) adding right-click protection to iphone pages may help Christine's particular situation but ignores my original point. The iphone pages still undermine my CSS customisation.
The option to opt out of iphone pages (maybe by using external links mechanism) should be available to Pro AND Power users as it directly relates to CSS.

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 09:23 AM
Christine - according to the iphone webapps page http://www.apple.com/webapps/entertainment/smugmug.html the smugmug iphone pages were made available circa Oct 2007. "search, browse and enjoy 180 million photos on your phone" say Apple.

Allen - if you dont use any CSS on your regular Smugmug homepage then you are right, it makes no difference.
but . . . . if you DO hide any categories on your homepage (or on any other of your smgmug pages) using the CSS tools available to Power/Pro users, then there IS a big difference, because the sophistication of the CSS is ignored by the iphone pages.

Andy - Leaving aside the fact that the Smugmug's javascript right-click 'protection' can be circumvented by hitting 'Print Screen' (as all but the newest newbie must know) adding right-click protection to iphone pages may help Christine's particular situation

I've put in a request to fix this.

but ignores my original point. The iphone pages still undermine my CSS customisation.
The option to opt out of iphone pages (maybe by using external links mechanism) should be available to Pro AND Power users as it directly relates to CSS.
Thanks for the feature request, we hear it loud and clear. Can't promise that we'll allow this granularity, but thanks for telling us how important it is to you!

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 09:28 AM
A bad trend for who? For us your consumer, or the iphone users? Is there some hand shaking going on that would upset iphone if smumug account holders actually had the ability to control what the iphone users are able to do.

Why not allow the pro account users that ability to opt out of sharing photos. The pro account users are traditionally ones who are trying to sell their photos for income, and not give them away. :rolleyes

So I can try to see the flip side of the coin, can I ask the reasoning behind not giving us the option to just opt out?
A bad trend for folks using all sorts of devices, real, and future-imagined :)

If we respect your gallery settings, it should be a non-issue.

Thanks for adding your voice to opt-out. Not sure if that's even possible, but thanks for telling us how important shutting your site down from mobile users is. Personally, I think you're making a mistake with this thinking...

cdonovan
Mar-28-2008, 09:29 AM
Andy - Leaving aside the fact that the Smugmug's javascript right-click 'protection' can be circumvented by hitting 'Print Screen' (as all but the newest newbie must know) adding right-click protection to iphone pages may help Christine's particular situation but ignores my original point. The iphone pages still undermine my CSS customisation.
The option to opt out of iphone pages (maybe by using external links mechanism) should be available to Pro AND Power users as it directly relates to CSS.

That's the most important part of this whole thing I personally think. It's not a situation unique to myself, I have many collegues that do similar work who were not at all happy to find out this little gem.

Andy, yes I do read the feed that appears on my homepage, and just realized that I can opt in to get email updates.(bonus) When I went through the blog archives, I see a post in early September about the iphones. What concerns me is no where in the release does it mention anything about the ability to browse on your pc nor does it mention that the iphone users are not only able to browse, but also upload the photos.(to the phone and the pc) It talks about something exciting for iphone users, something that because I do not have one, would have probably skipped over without recognizing that these problems would exist.

Allen
Mar-28-2008, 09:30 AM
..
Allen - if you dont use any CSS on your regular Smugmug homepage then you are right, it makes no difference.
but . . . . if you DO hide any categories on your homepage (or on any other of your smgmug pages) using the CSS tools available to Power/Pro users, then there IS a big difference, because the sophistication of the CSS is ignored by the iphone pages...
I think you're missing that with the iphone view you only see the photo and
not the page so your CSS is meaningless. Switching to a regular browser view
your CSS is active and seen. BTW, on a PC with WebDev I can completely
disable your CSS and js and see those hidden cats.

cdonovan
Mar-28-2008, 09:51 AM
I think you're missing that with the iphone view you only see the photo and
not the page so your CSS is meaningless.


Wait now, doesn't this mean that iphone users can opt to see the iphone friendly version or the regular version of each site?
from the release notes (http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2007/09/04/iphones-and-more-enhancements-july-2007/)

A link from your homepage to iPhone if you’re browsing on your phone.
A link on your iPhone back to ‘Full Homepage’ so you can go back to regular SmugMug
Personally, I think you're making a mistake with this thinking...

I wish someone could convince me of this, I still can't see how this feature benefits me, call me selfish, but I want my site to work for me, my business and my clients...I don't give a rats behind about being someones background photo on their iphone, which is the only reason I can see, read or understand why this is enabled in the first place....again "free stock images" comes to mind. Can you please try to tell me why I'm making a mistake?

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 09:57 AM
Wait now, doesn't this mean that iphone users can opt to see the iphone friendly version or the regular version of each site?


Sure, the iPhone, like many mobile devices, has a browser (Safari) and it can see any website.

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 09:59 AM
I wish someone could convince me of this, I still can't see how this feature benefits me, call me selfish, but I want my site to work for me, my business and my clients...I don't give a rats behind about being someones background photo on their iphone, which is the only reason I can see, read or understand why this is enabled in the first place....again "free stock images" comes to mind. Can you please try to tell me why I'm making a mistake?
You're not alone. Many pros "button up" too much. I'm a pro. I sell my work. I want my work to be seen by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

You should too. I think you are getting worked up over one thing (access via mobile phones) that is a benefit to you. If the access obeys the gallery settings, it's a no brainer in my opinion. Embrace the web. Don't hide.

Why won't someone use a mobile device to show a proof of what you're trying to sell? To get approval or concurrence on purchase?

Don't shut out a single visitor or viewer, in my opinion.

Snowgirl
Mar-28-2008, 10:03 AM
I just learned about this issue and am concerned as well. I purchased a Pro account, added watermarks and right-click protected all of my images in all of my public galleries so they'd be 'safe'. Now, as I understand it, they're not? They can be downloaded without my permission? And without compensation?

Is security not one of the advantages sold by SmugMug?

:dunno

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 10:07 AM
I just learned about this issue and am concerned as well. I purchased a Pro account, added watermarks and right-click protected all of my images in all of my public galleries so they'd be 'safe'. Now, as I understand it, they're not? They can be downloaded without my permission? And without compensation?

Is security not one of the advantages sold by SmugMug?

:dunno


OK Folks, Let's say it again. I'm really sorry this is confusing, we'll try and clear things up.

The iPhone respects the sizes you allow in your gallery settings. The iPhone respects public and unlisted galleries.

adding /iphone to a url like nickname.smugmug.com/iphone in a browser will go around right click protection for the images -- we'll plug that (and thanks again to the Original Poster for pointing this out).

But please, please, don't jump to conclusions about mobile phone usage to browse your sites :) It's a good thing for people to see your public stuff on any platform.

Security is hugely important to us, and we take it very seriously.

mbellot
Mar-28-2008, 10:32 AM
Sure, the iPhone, like many mobile devices, has a browser (Safari) and it can see any website.
Then give US the option to shut them out of the iphone friendly version if we so desire.

I'd like the option to kill feeds completely too, but that fell on deaf ears as well.

Smugmug is a fantastic service, but sometimes it seems like being technologically "with it" carries more weight than real customer desire.

Offer all the gizmos, I'm sure many users like them. Hell, turn them on by default. But give ME the ability to turn them off if thats my wish.

You're not alone. Many pros "button up" too much. I'm a pro. I sell my work. I want my work to be seen by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
But I have customers (PTA organizations) who don't want my work (their kids) "to be seen by anyone, anywhere, anytime". They also don't want to deal with having to distribute passwords to hundreds of families.

The hidden category hack allows for a modicum of relative privacy for otherwise "public" galleries. Can it be circumvented? Sure. But the number of users who might figure out how is in the sub 1% range. Just like locks on your house... If a real criminal wants your new Plasma TV the locks are a momentary annoyance.

Combine the hidden category hack with the vanity url hack and its very easy to keep people with non-paranoid privacy concerns happy and not break the breadcrumb navigation system (which happens with unlisted gallerys).

omgitsacamera
Mar-28-2008, 10:57 AM
I'm lost, let me get a grasp of what is going on:

If you append an /iphone to the address, it still conforms with the size options but not the right-click protection?

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 11:00 AM
I'm lost, let me get a grasp of what is going on:

If you append an /iphone to the address, it still conforms with the size options but not the right-click protection?
http://www.omgitsacamera.smugmug.com/iphone/

Allen
Mar-28-2008, 11:41 AM
http://www.omgitsacamera.smugmug.com/iphone/
byw, on that page click "Smugmug on iPhone" and put your nickname in search users
and you'll see what your site looks like with iPhone.

Sure wish it showed categories rather then the 100's of galleries, be easier to
jump to galleries in a category then page after page of galleries to go though.

timnosenzo
Mar-28-2008, 11:42 AM
I wish someone could convince me of this, I still can't see how this feature benefits me, call me selfish, but I want my site to work for me, my business and my clients...I don't give a rats behind about being someones background photo on their iphone, which is the only reason I can see, read or understand why this is enabled in the first place....again "free stock images" comes to mind. Can you please try to tell me why I'm making a mistake?

FWIW, there is no way to save a photo from the web to your iPhone, or set it as the background. At least, I can't figure out a way to do it with mine, and same with other people I know with iPhones. You have to save the image to your computer, then sync it to your iPhone from there.

timnosenzo
Mar-28-2008, 11:43 AM
Sure wish it showed categories rather then the 100's of galleries, be easier to jump to galleries in a category then page after page of galleries to go though.

Same here, that would be great! Just make it follow the same category and gallery structure as site. :wink

cdonovan
Mar-28-2008, 12:10 PM
Then give US the option to shut them out of the iphone friendly version if we so desire.

Smugmug is a fantastic service, but sometimes it seems like being technologically "with it" carries more weight than real customer desire.

Offer all the gizmos, I'm sure many users like them. Hell, turn them on by default. But give ME the ability to turn them off if thats my wish.

Amen to that!

I personally don't like being told what is good for me and my business, at the very least I think that these frilly things should be optional and allow those who don't want to participate to opt out. What fits for ones business, doesn't fit with everyone elses.

I've wasted entirely too much time trying to get my point across here. I hope it's been worth something.

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 12:14 PM
Amen to that!

I personally don't like being told what is good for me and my business, at the very least I think that these frilly things should be optional and allow those who don't want to participate to opt out. What fits for ones business, doesn't fit with everyone elses.

I've wasted entirely too much time trying to get my point across here. I hope it's been worth something.Hi Christine, I'm not telling you what's good for you. I'm voicing my opinion, and I'm entitled to do so, just like you are :) I walk in your shoes as well :thumb

You haven't wasted a moment - we give a darn about every single issue, and we can see the passion in your posts and comments.

Play fair, Christine, I am.

Allen
Mar-28-2008, 12:17 PM
Amen to that!

I personally don't like being told what is good for me and my business, at the very least I think that these frilly things should be optional and allow those who don't want to participate to opt out. What fits for ones business, doesn't fit with everyone elses.

I've wasted entirely too much time trying to get my point across here. I hope it's been worth something.
So what happens when another pc/mac browser is created and it just
happens to look and act like the iPhone browser? Maybe Opera, Flock, IE6,
IE7 or any other browser you don't like can be disabled from viewing your site.

Just food for thought.

mbellot
Mar-28-2008, 12:41 PM
So what happens when another pc/mac browser is created and it just
happens to look and act like the iPhone browser? Maybe Opera, Flock, IE6,
IE7 or any other browser you don't like can be disabled from viewing your site.

Just food for thought.
Its not the iPhone browser that is at issue Allen, it is the iPhone customized interface to SmugMug that is, since it is bypassing things that I have worked to set up and SmugMug (whom I am paying) is the one enabling the interface, not the iphone.

To your other point, disabling browsers is somewhat trivial using a bit of javascript. But I can't disable a link to a version of my site that I don't want available if it gets parsed and redirected before it ever hits my homepage.


Andy, to be fair you were voicing an opinion that sounded like you were telling some of us what to do.

You're not alone. Many pros "button up" too much.
That sounds (IMHO) like you're telling us we need to be more interested in being "seen" for the good of our business.

Having sections of my site seen by just anyone is counter productive to my business. YMMV.

cdonovan
Mar-28-2008, 12:52 PM
Hi Christine, I'm not telling you what's good for you. I'm voicing my opinion, and I'm entitled to do so, just like you are :) I walk in your shoes as well :thumb

You haven't wasted a moment - we give a darn about every single issue, and we can see the passion in your posts and comments.

Play fair, Christine, I am.

Sorry Andy, that didn't mean to come across as being b$#%^&. When I said that I dont' like being told what is good for me and my business, I wasn't referring to your post about what is good about the iphone thing, I was referring to the features of the site that I don't want to participate with, but have to, (example this and the feeds) because it's a blanket feature.

I love smugmug, and despite being very upset about this feature I won't be moving out or changing sites, the fact remains that you are number 1 with customer service, and that 99% of the time I'm thrilled with smugmug. I thank you for looking into protecting the images at the very least and taking the suggestion of being able to opt out of the service altogether.

So until the opt out feature is available I'll have all galleries password protected. Is there a way that access could be granted to iphone users based on the option of easy share being turned on or off, rather than the password protection?

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 12:56 PM
Is there a way that access could be granted to iphone users based on the option of easy share being turned on or off, rather than the password protection?Thx Christine :)

I have no idea - and I don't want to distract our Sorcerers from improving the Cart, working on coupons, packages, etc.

jfriend
Mar-28-2008, 12:57 PM
Then give US the option to shut them out of the iphone friendly version if we so desire.

I'd like the option to kill feeds completely too, but that fell on deaf ears as well.

Smugmug is a fantastic service, but sometimes it seems like being technologically "with it" carries more weight than real customer desire.

Offer all the gizmos, I'm sure many users like them. Hell, turn them on by default. But give ME the ability to turn them off if thats my wish.


But I have customers (PTA organizations) who don't want my work (their kids) "to be seen by anyone, anywhere, anytime". They also don't want to deal with having to distribute passwords to hundreds of families.

The hidden category hack allows for a modicum of relative privacy for otherwise "public" galleries. Can it be circumvented? Sure. But the number of users who might figure out how is in the sub 1% range. Just like locks on your house... If a real criminal wants your new Plasma TV the locks are a momentary annoyance.

Combine the hidden category hack with the vanity url hack and its very easy to keep people with non-paranoid privacy concerns happy and not break the breadcrumb navigation system (which happens with unlisted gallerys).

Folks, you need to rethink what you're asking for and how you've set up your galleries. A CSS hack to "hide" a gallery is like drawing the shades on one window and leaving the window right next to it wide open. There are purposely many, many ways to get to public galleries. A CSS hack only makes it more difficult to get there in one specific way.

If you don't want a gallery to be public, then don't make it public. Smugmug provides several excellent alternatives that, when you use them, will not be visible in the mobile UI. I would strongly suggest that everyone who's using a CSS hack to hide a gallery or category and really doesn't want that to be browsable should seriously reconsider how they are doing it because the CSS hack only deters one of many possible ways in.

Just to give you an idea for how many other ways there are to discover your galleries if you make them public, here are a few others:

Any web crawler can crawl your site and see all public galleries. They are all their in the HTML.
Anyone who blocks your custom CSS can see all public galleries.
Anyone looking at the HTML for your pages can see all public galleries. CSS only makes a compliant browser not display them, the HTML is still there.
Anyone using the Smugmug APIs can see all public galleries.
Anyone using one of several products built on the Smugmug APIs can see all public galleries.
Mobile browsing interface.
And probably four or five more ways that I don't even know about.

Public galleries are meant to be accessible to the public and are designed that way. If you don't want them accessible to the public, then you really should use one of the three methods Smugmug provides you for that:

Password protect your site
Password protect the gallery
Make the gallery unlistedI repeat, using CSS hacks is like closing the shades on one window while leaving three other windows wide open. If you want all the windows closed and locked, use one of the supported methods for privacy that Smugmug has provided.

mbellot
Mar-28-2008, 01:10 PM
A CSS hack only makes it more difficult to get there in one specific way.

Precisely. I (and some of my customers) do not want random vistors to my homepage to be able to easily find certain photos/galleries.

But, I need them to be easy to navigate for those that should see them and as painless as possible to get in for those who should be there.

I don't need or want a $50,000 security system for my 10 year old Toyota because I'm worried someone might steal it. Locking the door is sufficient to keep all but the serious crooks honest. Same goes for the CSS hacks.


Password protect your site
Password protect the gallery
Make the gallery unlisted

1 and 2 involve additional "overhead" (password dispersal) that my customers don't want to have to deal with and 3 totally breaks navigation.

georges
Mar-28-2008, 02:39 PM
...Sure wish it showed categories rather then the 100's of galleries, be easier to jump to galleries in a category then page after page of galleries to go though.

I second this. GS

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 03:02 PM
. . . don't shut out a single visitor or viewer, in my opinion.

You assume I want to sell my images?
I think too many assumptions are being made. I am not a professional photographer. I am an Architect and want to give clients url links to a category for their project. Each Client gets a category. My homepage shows no categories so they cant browse up. I dont want to password galleries for the same reason as Christine. I am 100% happy with my Smugmug setup . .I just dont want casual browsers looking at my client's stuff via the iphone page.

There are as many ways of using Smugmug as there are users. We all have different needs so 'flexibility' is the key and it is what SMugmug excels at.


Yes I know there are loads of ways of viewing 'public' galleries if you know webdev and disabling CSS etc but most folks dont. Smugmug actually promote 'right click protection' for Power Users! Right click protection is only slightly better than useless and can be circumvented by a screen grab. So it is a little disingenuous to suggest on one hand that my CSS hack to hide galleries is all but useless and on the other hand to promote right click protection! I know which one is the trickier to get around.

Why are folks resistant and 'defensive' about this? The ability to exlude iphones from seeing non externally linked galleries is a good option to have and disadvantages no-one.

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 03:07 PM
Precisely. I (and some of my customers) do not want random vistors to my homepage to be able to easily find certain photos/galleries.

But, I need them to be easy to navigate for those that should see them and as painless as possible to get in for those who should be there.

I don't need or want a $50,000 security system for my 10 year old Toyota because I'm worried someone might steal it. Locking the door is sufficient to keep all but the serious crooks honest. Same goes for the CSS hacks.



1 and 2 involve additional "overhead" (password dispersal) that my customers don't want to have to deal with and 3 totally breaks navigation.Unlisted doesn't break navigation at all. And it won't show up on the iPhone.

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 03:09 PM
You assume I want to sell my images?
I think too many assumptions are being made. I am not a professional photographer. I am an Architect and want to give clients url links to a category for their project. Each Client gets a category. My homepage shows no categories so they cant browse up. I dont want to password galleries for the same reason as Christine.

I'm not sure why making them 'unlisted' won't work for you? You can still give them links to their galleries. Then they won't show on the iPhone.

Doesn't this work? What am I missing... I'm all ears and not defensive at all, this is a fine topic. But let's have the facts and make rational decisions :)

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 03:10 PM
Unlisted doesn't break navigation at all. And it won't show up on the iPhone.

I think he means it breaks navigation because you have to give people unique urls to unlisted galleries or add them to sharegroups to see them.

Andy - can I just say 'thanks for dealing with this'. Its only now that I have a vested interest in the development of a thread that I appreciate your efforts! Does flattery still work?

DrDavid
Mar-28-2008, 03:15 PM
I've been reading this thread, and I have to say that if people on here are managing their security by just making the links obscure, (i.e. CSS to hide something), that's just plain silly. I work in IT for a living, and if I did security through obscurity, I wouldn't have a job!

Andy's right. Make it unlisted. That's what I do. My About Me page? Unlisted and linked from the nav bar. Doesn't show up on /iphone. Lots of galleries where I take photos for fun/friends and don't really want it to showcase my skills? Unlisted. Easy to do. Fixes your issues, and if you're already hading out URL's, handing out a different one isn't the end of the world. Otherwise, consider what I do.. I create sharegroups and make the sharegroup into a vanity URL. Easy to use, easy to remember, powerful new tool! :)

David

DrDavid
Mar-28-2008, 03:19 PM
Thx Christine :)

I have no idea - and I don't want to distract our Sorcerers from improving the Cart, working on coupons, packages, etc.
Now, that's not fair Andy! You're teasing her AND me! I *so* want a new cart/coupons/packages/analytics, etc.. Personally, you could take back the slideshow for those improvements instead :) -- OH, and did I mention metallic paper?

David

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 03:26 PM
'unlisted doesnt work for the following reason : -
I create categories as follows :
Client 1
Client 2
Client 3
etc etc
I give Clients url links to their Category.
I dump galleries into the client categories as required. My clients can always see the galleries I upload.

If I make them unlisted then the Client CANNOT see the galleries because they only have a link to the Category.
Unlisted galleries are not visible.

My system works fine (each client is not aware of the other's categories and sees only their own stuff), but my system is rendered useless by the iphone interface because Clients can see other Clients stuff.

DrDavid . . are you honestly suggesting that I give each client 100 urls for 100 galleries? When currently I give them just one . . just so that I can accomodate the iphone interface? Please read what i have just said about why unlisted doesnt work for me! And please respect the fact that differnet people use smugmug differnet ways. eg. I wouldnt use right click protection but I respect Christine's choice to do so. If you work in IT you have have a perspective on this which my Client's dont. My Clients dont work in IT and I am not that concerned about them circumventing my CSS but there is no point SMugmug selling us CSS tools for the front door and then leaving the back door open. Its a simple disparity which cannot be disputed. PLEASE tell me who would be disadvantaged if the iphone interface could not see galleries with external links switcched off?

DrDavid
Mar-28-2008, 03:32 PM
'unlisted doesnt work for the following reason : -
I create categories as follows :
Client 1
Client 2
Client 3
etc etc
I give Clients url links to their Category.
Can I suggest sharegroups? Then, create vanity links to the sharegroup.. Then, make them unlisted. Finally, there's JS around here to fix the breadcrumbs for the sharegroups and make it work correctly for your clients. It's a bit of a work-around, but, it would totally work perfectly for you. And, it wouldn't require a ton of work.

David

DrDavid
Mar-28-2008, 03:38 PM
PLEASE tell me who would be disadvantaged if the iphone interface could not see galleries with external links switcched off?
Sorry for replying twice in a row, but, I forgot to address this. It may well be that the code required to hide the galleries that are set as "external links off" is highly complex and difficult to do for SM. But, I could always get an RSS feed for your site and get access to the same information that I can from /iPhone. Or, I can just grab your CSS and see what you're hiding and turn that off in devtools. Or..

Really, if you want it 'secret', don't rely on CSS.

David

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 03:39 PM
It's a bit of a work-around, . .

David

You said it!
My 1 step workflow is : -
1 Upload new gallery to client category.
Repeat every day for 6 months. Client has ONE url and I have an easy upload workflow.

Instead You want me to : -
1 upload the gallery.
2 Close the upload panel and switch to Customize Gallery.
3 Make it unlisted.
4 Switch to Control Panel.
5 Go to Sharegroups and try to find the last uploaded gallery in a sea of ALL my galleries and add it to the Sharegroup.

You obviously dont upload 2 or more galleries a day, every day, every week, every month!

DrDavid you work in IT! My clients dont. they dont know what CSS even means!
You know how they transport diamonds? They send them through regular post . . . . . hidden in plain sight works best.

There is a ton of posts on here telling us how to use CSS. Its so powerful you have to pay extra to get it . . . I know what it does and I know its limitations . . it should be MY choice to use it or not and it should be MY choice whether to have to have the iphone interface running parallel with it.

DrDavid
Mar-28-2008, 03:44 PM
You said it!
My 1 step workflow is : -
1 Upload new gallery to client category.
Repeat every day for 6 months. Client has ONE url and I have an easy upload workflow.

Instead You want me to : -
1 upload the gallery.
2 Close the upload panel and switch to Customize Gallery.
3 Make it unlisted.
4 Switch to Control Panel.
5 Go to Sharegroups and try to find the last uploaded gallery in a sea of ALL my galleries and add it to the Sharegroup.

You obviously dont upload 2 or more galleries a day, every day, every week, every month!

DrDavid you work in IT! My clients dont. they dont know what CSS even means!
I'm just trying to be helpful... There's no need to get angry at me! I think there's a third (and better) answer to all this. A quicksetting that includes the sharegroup it'll be added to! So, when I create a gallery, I can make it unlisted and part of the ABCD sharegroup with one click total. (In the same way you already choose the settings for the gallery anyways). This, I'd assume, should be easier to implement IMHO.

David

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 03:48 PM
Not getting angry David (apologies if thats how it came accross)! All is cool. Unfortuneatley you cannot add Sharegroup as a quicksetting, nor can you find Sharegroup in the gallery tools, nor can you choose a custom quick setting to act as a default for your uploads.

Why do think that is easier to implement than forcing iphone pages only to show images with external links activated?

DrDavid
Mar-28-2008, 03:52 PM
Not getting angry David (apologies if thats how it came accross)! All is cool. Unfortuneatley you cannot add Sharegroup as a quicksetting, nor can you find Sharegroup in the gallery tools, nor can you choose a custom quick setting to act as a default for your uploads.

Why do think that is easier to implement than forcing iphone pages only to show images with external links activated?
I think there's a better cost/benefit ratio to add a sharegroup quicksetting vs. an iphone hide option. So, IMHO, there's more chance of getting SM to implement the quicksetting than the iphone setting. Curious though; if your clients don't have a clue about CSS, etc.. Why would they have iphones where they could spy on other projects? Seems odd to me... Most of my computer clueless clients don't really belly up to the bar for pocket PC's or iphones, etc..

David

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 03:59 PM
Just out of interest . . philospohically, what exactly is the difference between 'public' and 'unlisted'?

I can give you a url to a public gallery I have.
I can give you a url to an unlisted gallery I have.

The ONLY difference is whether they are allowed to appear on your Smugmug home page . . which can be controlled with CSS.
You will never find my 'public' galleries if you dont know my username, just as you would nevr finf them if I uploaded them to www.mywebsite/my pics
if you dont know what my website is called.
I could see your unlisted galleries if I guessed the url (or had software to guess it). Security levels are a relative concept. I am happy with my galleries being 'public' at www.122hh6hg6hh.smugmug.com and my homepage shielded using CSS because you wont find it. Why do I need to make them unlisted?

Andy
Mar-28-2008, 04:00 PM
Just out of interest . . philospohically, what exactly is the difference between 'public' and 'unlisted'?

I can give you a url to a public gallery I have.
I can give you a url to an unlisted gallery I have.

The ONLY difference is whether they are allowed to appear on your Smugmug home page . . which can be controlled with CSS.
You will never find my 'public' galleries if you dont know my username, just as you would nevr finf them if I uploaded them to www.mywebsite/my pics
if you dont know what my website is called.
I could see your unlisted galleries if I guessed the url (or had software to guess it). Security levels are a relative concept. I am happy with my galleries being 'public' at www.122hh6hg6hh.smugmug.com and my homepage shielded using CSS because you wont find it. Why do I need to make them unlisted?
You don't have to. I'm just saying that we have the options available to make your galleries not seen on the iPhone.

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 04:01 PM
They dont necessarily have iphones. I am not concerned about people with iphones. You can view the iphone stuff using your regular Firefox or IE by typing it in the URL . .thats the weakness that concerns me.
See www.drdavid.smugmug.com/iphone

DrDavid
Mar-28-2008, 04:02 PM
Just out of interest . . philospohically, what exactly is the difference between 'public' and 'unlisted'?

I can give you a url to a public gallery I have.
I can give you a url to an unlisted gallery I have.

The ONLY difference is whether they are allowed to appear on your Smugmug home page . . which can be controlled with CSS.
You will never find my 'public' galleries if you dont know my username, just as you would nevr finf them if I uploaded them to www.mywebsite/my (http://www.mywebsite/my) pics
if you dont know what my website is called.
I could see your unlisted galleries if I guessed the url (or had software to guess it). Security levels are a relative concept. I am happy with my galleries being 'public' at www.122hh6hg6hh.smugmug.com (http://www.122hh6hg6hh.smugmug.com) and my homepage shielded using CSS because you wont find it. Why do I need to make them unlisted?
A public gallery is public for all (including RSS readers) to see. I'm pretty sure the iphone interface is using the RSS feeds to do it's job. It'd be silly not to. So, to add the 'no external links' you'd need to reinvent the RSS feeds too. On the other hand, my suggestion works within the framework of SM AND is beneficial for ALL people on SM; not just a few.

David

DrDavid
Mar-28-2008, 04:04 PM
They dont necessarily have iphones. I am not concerned about people with iphones. You can view the iphone stuff using your regular Firefox or IE by typing it in the URL . .thats the weakness that concerns me.
See www.drdavid.smugmug.com/iphone (http://www.drdavid.smugmug.com/iphone)
And you think they'll figure out the /iphone link but not how to reveal CSS using the Firefox plugin devtools (available on the firefox site). All you need to do is edit the CSS and delete your 'display:none' lines. voila, all galleries are visible. It took me about 5 seconds to do. And, anyone reading this thread, will now know how to do that too (along with the /iphone link). Link to the tool here: http://chrispederick.com/work/web-developer/ (highly recommended :) )

David

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 04:08 PM
we have the options available to make your galleries not seen on the iPhone.


yes you are right, you do. Unlisted or Passworded . . . . . . so my CSS customization homepage is rendered pointless and I need to adopt a more cumbersome workflow just to accomodate the fact that I have no power to opt out of the iphone interface offering up all my 'public' galleries.

Many people have one or more Categories 'hidden' on their homepage using CSS. This will affect more folks than you might think. Its not a security issue . .its about presentation and control.


Perhaps I should ask this question another way.
Exactly why are there countless threads explaining how to hide stuff on your homepage using CSS?

And how long does it take you to find the Firefox temporary internet files cache? And hence all the images which are supposedly right click protected? Yet still it is 'sold' as a feature to Power Users. Most folks arent up to this level of hacking . . you need to take the view of the common man.

DrDavid
Mar-28-2008, 04:10 PM
yes you are right, you do. Unlisted or Passworded . . . . . . so my CSS customization homepage is rendered pointless and I need to adopt a more cumbersome workflow just to accomodate the fact that I have no power to opt out of the iphone interface offering up all my 'public' galleries.

Many people have one or more Categories 'hidden' on their homepage using CSS. This will affect more folks than you might think. Its not a security issue . .its about presentation and control.
These clients who know nothing about CSS and devtools... Please tell me why you think that they know about /iphone? Besides.. RSS is a easier to use and would do the same thing as the /iphone link.

The threads on hiding things is to make stuff "look" nicer. That's about it. It's just a visual tool to clean up the site. But, it's not a security device. AND, technically, it's a hack; and therefore "unsupported" by SM.

David

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 04:16 PM
. . and therefore "unsupported" by SM.

David

Does the CSS functionailty not have a lengthy FAQ on the SMugmug site telling you how to do 'cool stuff'? Do you not have to pay extra to get to do it? Are you really trying to say its 'unofficial'? My credit card payment to get to use it was certainly official enough.

DrDavid
Mar-28-2008, 04:19 PM
Does the CSS functionailty not have a lengthy FAQ on the SMugmug site telling you how to do 'cool stuff'? Do you not have to pay extra to get to do it? Are you really trying to say its 'unofficial'? My credit card payment to get to use it was certainly official enough.I agree with you; but, because you have the ABILITY to customize doesn't mean the customization is guaranteed to always work the same today and in the future.

Look, all I'm saying is that EVEN IF they did what you wanted.. it would only benefit a few people (not that those people aren't important mind you...) BUT, if they did a quicksetting for a sharegroup, that would benefit *everyone* and give you the same outcome--with actual security vs. the hide-and-seek game you're currently playing.

David

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 04:25 PM
These clients who know nothing about CSS and devtools... Please tell me why you think that they know about /iphone?
http://www.apple.com/webapps/entertainment/smugmug.html

I have heard that the Apple website is quite a popular one . . . and links straight to smugmugs 'iphone' pages (all 180 million photos)

http://www.smugmug.com/iphone/#_home

stick drdavid in the search box . .

You will also smile when you read these words on the Apple site ". . Smugmug is a popular photo sharing site featuring gorgeous galleries and nearly limitless customization . . " (well in fairness they did say 'nearly'!).

I dont want my Clients finding their stuff that way. They will not enjoy being quite so exposed . . whereas with smugislands activated and an obscure user name (not to mention my CSS 'hacks') they are all but invisible to the outside world via the regular Smugmug site.

I do agree with you about the Sharegroup quicksetting . . but I would go further . . just add a droplist of Sharegroups to the Gallery Tools . . that way . . when i upload I can select a Sharegroup to send the Gallery too. I would happily make all my galleries unlisted and give Clients the sharegroup url. I would be much happier in fact. But the current method for assigning Sharegroups is not good . . plus there is no hierarchy. Currently, my clients get a 'Category' of their own and several sub-categories containing galleries. Sharegroups are a blunt tool offering up one big lump of galleries. There is no structure . .and you need to start hiding breadcrumbs because people start clicking on them and get hopelessly lost. Its just not good . . . . .if I could repeat once again . .i am VERY happy with my current setup . .I just want to be able to 'lock' the iphone door.

DrDavid
Mar-28-2008, 04:36 PM
http://www.apple.com/webapps/entertainment/smugmug.html

I have heard that the Apple website is quite a popular one . . . and links straight to smugmugs 'iphone' pages (all 180 million photos) :lol3 You're right.. Apple is popular. But, then your clients are better than you think if they can even type an actual URL in the ADDRESS box vs. searching for the link in google/aol/msn, etc.. :rolleyes
I do agree with you about the Sharegroup quicksetting . . but I would go further . . just add a droplist of Sharegroups to the Gallery Tools . . that way . . when i upload I can select a Sharegroup to send the Gallery too. I would happily make all my galleries unlisted and give Clients the sharegroup url. I would be much happier in fact. But the current method for assigning Sharegroups is not good . . plus there is no hierarchy. Currently, my clients get a 'Category' of their own and several sub-categories containing galleries. Sharegroups are a blunt tool offering up one big lump of galleries. There is no structure . .and you need to start hiding breadcrumbs because people start clicking on them and get hopelessly lost. Its not good . . .
I agree. Sharegroups could be improved. But, my suggestion is (I'd guess) fairly easy to do--and would be a GREAT improvement over the current method.

David

stuartb
Mar-28-2008, 04:46 PM
We are in agreement about Sharegroups being flawed. They need to be easier to implement and recognise sub-categories. But I still think there is an issue to be addressed about this iphone thing . . . there is an obvious disparity between the regular Smugmug homepage and the iphone Smugmug optimised 'homepage' I fully understand that the CSS may not run on the iphone due to the limitations of the software, its just frustrating to me that the shortcomings of the phone compromise the way smugmug works for me and I can do nothing about that currently. lets wait and see what the Smugmug techs come up with. It might be a simple tweak. Fingers crossed.

mbellot
Mar-28-2008, 05:28 PM
I'm not sure why making them 'unlisted' won't work for you? You can still give them links to their galleries. Then they won't show on the iPhone.

Doesn't this work? What am I missing... I'm all ears and not defensive at all, this is a fine topic. But let's have the facts and make rational decisions :)
I think he means it breaks navigation because you have to give people unique urls to unlisted galleries or add them to sharegroups to see them.
This is precisely what I mean.

I shoot events (usually kid stuff) and have 20-40 galleries per event stored in a category -> subcategory "location".

If I make them all unlisted then I have to:

1. Provide links to each (very unfriendly and essentially "broken" navigation)
2. Create a sharegroup (not so bad, and a vanity url helps), but navigation is broken.
3. Lock them down with passwords (unfriendly and problematical when lots of customers are involved), navigation works once the password is entered.

Using just the CSS/java hack allows me to use a simple vanity url to link to the category -> subcategory "location", leave the individual galleries "open" and not worry about casual vistors.

A public gallery is public for all (including RSS readers) to see.
Which is why I would also like the option to disable feeds on my site.

I guess this is the fundamental issue it all boils down to...

SmugMug has some very cool features (tweaked iPhone interface, RSS feeds, Hello World, Hello Smuggers, etc) for being "found", which is great.

But, its MY site and I pay SmugMug for the services. I should have control over what content is available (I do for the most part) and how it is made available (not so much on this count).

Maybe its just as simple as someone (stuart I think) suggested. If the "external links" option is turned off for a specific gallery then it should NOT be available from anything but the standard web interface (no iphone, no RSS, not even the API if you're not logged in).

I can't stress enough how happy I am in general with SmugMug. The service is top notch (first hand experience just this past weekend) and the people (workers and users) are always freindly and helpful. :thumb

jfriend
Mar-28-2008, 09:48 PM
Just out of interest . . philospohically, what exactly is the difference between 'public' and 'unlisted'?

I can give you a url to a public gallery I have.
I can give you a url to an unlisted gallery I have.

The ONLY difference is whether they are allowed to appear on your Smugmug home page . . which can be controlled with CSS.
You will never find my 'public' galleries if you dont know my username, just as you would nevr finf them if I uploaded them to www.mywebsite/my (http://www.mywebsite/my) pics
if you dont know what my website is called.
I could see your unlisted galleries if I guessed the url (or had software to guess it). Security levels are a relative concept. I am happy with my galleries being 'public' at www.122hh6hg6hh.smugmug.com (http://www.122hh6hg6hh.smugmug.com) and my homepage shielded using CSS because you wont find it. Why do I need to make them unlisted?

The main difference between an unlisted gallery and a public gallery is that there is NO way to discover an unlisted gallery whereas there are many ways to discover a public gallery (home page, page crawler, smugmug APIs, third party tools that list galleries, etc...). You way over-simplify things when you describe the only difference as being visible on your home page. There are many, many more differences than that.

If you don't want it discovered by a random person, then unlisted was designed explicitly for that purpose.

I think you and David are on the right path. If unlisted isn't meeting your needs, then we should understand why it doesn't work for you and attempt to fix that rather than try to make a public gallery have most of the characteristics of an unlisted gallery. It would make a lot more sense to me to understand what you think is missing from unlisted galleries (and perhaps sharegroups) and see if that can be added there. Then public galleries can be public (like they were designed to be) and unlisted galleries can not be public (like they were designed to be).

I'm wondering, for example, what if you could have an unlisted category. It would never show in the home page or any public APIs or browsers. It would not be easily guessable. It could contain unlisted galleries. It could contain sub-categories. When you viewed it because someone gave you the link to it, it would behave like a category and have normal navigation (except probably no way to go up to the home page) so you could go into a gallery in it and then come back up. But, it would never show in any public pages or APIs. For one level of galleries, a sharegroup already is essentially an unlisted category, though not quite as easy to create/maintain. Enhancements are obviously needed to support multiple levels of unlisted.

stuartb
Mar-29-2008, 01:09 AM
jfriend . . you may just be some kind of genius! The ability to have unlisted Categories would suit me just fine . . exactly as you describe. Make it for Power and Pro only and Smugmug will see thousands of folks upgrading for that facility!
As long as there can be as many as I need, and I can give out ONE url to it and it can have subcategories then that is the almost perfect answer.

Heres hoping!

Kind Regards

. . it would make a lot more sense to me to understand what you think is missing from unlisted galleries (and perhaps sharegroups . .
As I see it, the Smugmug experience is 'designed' around Public galleries . . the homepage, the slideshow, the customisation tools, the breadcrumb navigation etc. Unlisted and sharegroups seem to me to be 'outwith' that smugmug experience, as if they are ring-fenced off to the side. There is no way to present say 50 unlisted galleries arranged in sub-categories to my client without giving them 50 urls. There is no navigation. Adding galleries to Sharegroups is cumbersome, and again there is no sub categories or navigation. Your unlisted category idea is brilliant but thinking about it . . I cant see how they can acheive it . . technically. Still . . hope springs eternal.


I think the word 'public' gallery is somewhat misleading. There are nearly 200million photos on smugmug are there not?. I defy anyone reading this thread to actually find my so-called 'public' galleries without me giving them the user name for my smugmug sites. My user name could be www.1g4353566HG.smugmug.com (and I can change it as often as I like with a few clicks) so unless I give you the link you are never going to find it. So if I give a client a link to their own 'category' like this www.1g4353566HG.smugmug.com/client13 I am pretty confident that no-one else is ever going to stumble upon it. And by hiding my homepage with a slideshow and hiding other categories by CSS I am happy enough that Client 13 will think that he has a group of sub-categories all to himself. He doesnt know about Client17 or Client05 etc because he cant see them. Of course if he is 'in IT' and feels like prying then thats a risk I am happy to take, but if he has a friend with an iphone and they get chatting about his project and the friend says "hey I think I can get smugmug on my iphone, lets have a look at your project!" then suddenly he is faced with ALL my other client's projects . . . and will quite naturally browse around. Its human nature. Out of sight out of mind. I would just like to have the option to prevent Smugmug displaying ALL my 'public' galleries to the iphone.

Allen
Mar-29-2008, 05:40 AM
Another method would be to hide your galleries/categories box in the control panel. No way to see anything without a direct link and no hacks needed. Each direct link, Client cats/subcats/gallery would work, breadcrumb/navigation preserved, if not hidden, up the line to the homepage with no links there to jump into another category. For your "public" categories create your own link page like this (http://allen-steve.smugmug.com/gallery/3539056).

stuartb
Mar-29-2008, 06:18 AM
Agreed Allen . . there's loads of ways to do it . . but currently no ways to stop them all appearing on the iphone page . . . which kinda devalues the power of the customizations and/or control panel tools . . . thats the problem we are trying to resolve.
I am simply hiding the Categories using the normal CSS tools available to Power/Pro users on the Control Panel : -

.homepage #galleriesBox,
.homepage #categoriesBox,
.homepage #featuredBox {
display: none;

So I am not clear on what you mean by 'no hacks needed'.

The links on your sample page dont actually go anywhere . . . . and even if they did, and you had links to 8 galleries but you really had 28 galleries . .then all 28 would appear on the iphone page . . outwith your control.

Allen
Mar-29-2008, 06:43 AM
Agreed Allen . . there's loads of ways to do it . . but currently no ways to stop them all appearing on the iphone page . . . which kinda devalues the power of the customizations and/or control panel tools . . . thats the problem we are trying to resolve. The links on your sample page dont actually go anywhere . . . . and even if they did, and you had links to 8 galleries but you really had 28 galleries . .then all 28 would appear on the iphone page . . outwith your control.
Each of those on that links page would go to the public categories. None of
your client cats/galleries would be seen or discoverable without a direct link.

To keep your client galleries from being discovered or seen by iPhone, add
the same password to all the client galleries, something simple like your
name or theirs. They also have to be public to be seen on the category or
subcat pages.

You could also use the clients last name for their galleries.
Hint: enter your last name (lower case)

jfriend
Mar-29-2008, 06:52 AM
I think the word 'public' gallery is somewhat misleading.

Come on stuart, this statement is a little overboard. We're trying to help you here, but taking things to this level is a bit far. The default behavior for a public gallery is that:

it's listed in your home page and thus browsable by anyone
it's available in smugmug search
it's available in search engine search
it's available on "popular photos"
it's available in category specific browsing from the smugmug top level
it's available in the mobile interface
it's available in keyword search without logging in to that account
it's available in a public RSS feed
it's available in the public Smugmug API without logging in to that accountThat's a public gallery. Plain and simple.

The default for an unlisted gallery is exactly the opposite. None of the above are true.

Just because you can take steps to obscure or disable or obscure some of the access methods normally available on public galleries doesn't mean that the word "public" is now somehow misleading. The intent of a public gallery is that folks other than those whom you specifically give a coded URL to have ways to find the gallery. If you don't want the public to find them, then they are probably not the right type of gallery for you. That's what unlisted and password protected galleries were made for.

Karenl39
Mar-29-2008, 07:46 AM
So basically the only way to completely protect our images is by watermarking all of them? I just used the iphone browser and browsed all my images and was able to see the large ones too, yikes!

DrDavid
Mar-29-2008, 08:47 AM
Allen's right; if you add a password to the galleries, they only have to enter it once (for all galleries) and it will stay on their computer in the form of a cookie for a week or so. Not too much of a challenge.

You can password protect them from quicksettings AND you can bulk password them in SmugBrowser.

David

mbellot
Mar-29-2008, 08:48 AM
Come on stuart, this statement is a little overboard. We're trying to help you here, but taking things to this level is a bit far. The default behavior for a public gallery is that:
it's listed in your home page and thus browsable by anyone
it's available in smugmug search
it's available in search engine search
it's available on "popular photos"
it's available in category specific browsing from the smugmug top level
it's available in the mobile interface
it's available in keyword search without logging in to that account
it's available in a public RSS feed
it's available in the public Smugmug API without logging in to that accountThat's a public gallery. Plain and simple.

The default for an unlisted gallery is exactly the opposite. None of the above are true.

But most of those public gallery default behaviours can be changed (turned off), either through control panel customization (disable searching, ratings, etc), intentional behaviour (not assigning keywords) or "hacks".

Only the delivery mechanisms (API, mobile interface and RSS) are without recourse for the owner to change.

I'm wondering, for example, what if you could have an unlisted category. It would never show in the home page or any public APIs or browsers.
A hidden category (and subcategory too) option would be great, as long as items underneath could be "public but hidden from above" so as to allow for easy navigation once "inside".

You would have to be sure the various interfaces respected the hidden category "global" setting. The iphone interface ignores category and subcategory completely, you are simply presented with dozens of pages of galleries. The RSS feed (IIRC) goes even further and just shows individual images.

Andy
Mar-29-2008, 09:34 AM
So basically the only way to completely protect our images is by watermarking all of them? I just used the iphone browser and browsed all my images and was able to see the large ones too, yikes!You can see the large ones in a regular browser, as well. iPhone browser respects the image sizes you set in the gallery.

The right click thing, we'll be fixing that.

stuartb
Mar-29-2008, 12:39 PM
JFriend, the point I was trying to make is that, for many people, 'public' galleries are not really any less 'secure' than unlisted.

If you are trying to sell your images and you promote your homepage then yes, there is a big difference. But I (and many others I suspect) have differnet needs from Smugmug and do not need to publicise my homepage. I use an obscure user name and dont give you the url and you would never find my 'public' galleries. All that stuff on your list is great for folks selling pics but I neither need nor use any of it. I appreciate that a lot of 'pros' frequent this forum but I suspect that the vast majority of Smugmug users dont sell anything and just need family, friends and maybe a small group of business contacts to have access to their pics.

I cannot see why anyone would have any objection to us being given the option somehow to opt out of the iphone interface or control it in someway. There have been some great suggestions made in this thread . . lets hope one of them gets taken up.

As an example . . the moonriver site shows 10 galleries on the 'official' homepage . . . but I see 33 'public' galleries by adding 'iphone' http://www.moonriverphotography.com/iphone I dont see what right-click protection will do . . . a simple press of the print screen button gets any image.

stuartb
Mar-29-2008, 01:05 PM
To keep your client galleries from being discovered or seen by iPhone, add the same password to all the client galleries . .
Allen (and DrDavid), I do not want my client's looking at rows of padlocks just to avoid this iphone issue. It is neither an attractive nor an elegant solution. A simpler solution is to have the iphone page 'ignore' images with external links turned off. Why would anyone possibly have an objection to that?

Allen
Mar-29-2008, 03:36 PM
Allen (and DrDavid), I do not want my client's looking at rows of padlocks just to avoid this iphone issue. It is neither an attractive nor an elegant solution. A simpler solution is to have the iphone page 'ignore' images with external links turned off. Why would anyone possibly have an objection to that?
Rows of padlocks, just feature a photo in each gallery and you won't see them.

stuartb
Mar-29-2008, 04:05 PM
I feel we are veering way off track here. I am not looking for workarounds or alternative ways of doing things. I am happy with my Smugmug setup. The point of me starting this thread was to highlight and enlighten everyone to the fact that on one hand we have the regular Smugmug homepage which offers us LOTS of control over how our galleries are displayed . . . and on the other hand we have a parallel 'iphone' interface which gives is NO control over how our galleries are displayed.

It is simply an unacceptable (to me) inconsistancy. The iphone interface is a blunt tool and therefore undermines any controls you have put in place on the normal smugmug homepage. This is an indesputable statement of fact. It is not about 'security' its just about having equal control over both interfaces. If smugmug cannot provide this equality (say for technical reasons) then smugmug customers should be allowed to opt out of the inferior iphone interface until such times as they can work out how to do it.

Check the moonriver site as an example (links 3 posts above). Their regular smugmug homepage is carefully set up to show you 8 galleries . . but the iphone interface reveals 33 galleries, as they have no way to control the iphone display to make it match their normal homepage.

Andy
Mar-29-2008, 04:09 PM
Check the moonriver site as an example. Their regular smugmug homepage is carefully set up to show you 8 galleries . . but the iphone interface reveals 33 galleries as they have no way to control it, to make it match the normal homepage.
My SITE is set to show these galleries. My homepage only shows a slideshow. My galleries page shows a bunch. And other pages show other galleries.

I'm rather happy that /iPhone is there so I (or anyone with an iPhone, or many types of mobile devices) can browse my site anytime I/they want to.

Galleries I don't want anyone to see/find, I have them passworded and out of the way.

stuartb
Mar-29-2008, 04:10 PM
Andy can I ask you to confirm whether you think I am making a valid point here?

jfriend
Mar-29-2008, 04:45 PM
I feel we are veering way off track here. I am not looking for workarounds or alternative ways of doing things. I am happy with my Smugmug setup. The point of me starting this thread was to highlight and enlighten everyone to the fact that on one hand we have the regular Smugmug homepage which offers us LOTS of control over how our galleries are displayed . . . and on the other hand we have a parallel 'iphone' interface which gives is NO control over how our galleries are displayed.

It is simply an unacceptable (to me) inconsistancy. The iphone interface is a blunt tool and therefore undermines any controls you have put in place on the normal smugmug homepage. This is an indesputable statement of fact. It is not about 'security' its just about having equal control over both interfaces. If smugmug cannot provide this equality (say for technical reasons) then smugmug customers should be allowed to opt out of the inferior iphone interface until such times as they can work out how to do it.

Check the moonriver site as an example (links 3 posts above). Their regular smugmug homepage is carefully set up to show you 8 galleries . . but the iphone interface reveals 33 galleries, as they have no way to control the iphone display to make it match their normal homepage.

If I were Smugmug (which I am not though I have many years of software experience in both security and usability), I would not add features to promote the use of public galleries when unlisted galleries are the more appropriate tool to deliver privacy or security.

I would want to be free to add many more interfaces for galleries in the future besides a web interface that respects your CSS settings. These would include things like a web explorer gallery view built into the PC, a mobile interface for browsers that can't do CSS, thick client tools that show galleries and gallery hierarchies but aren't browsers and thus don't do CSS, integration with third parties for ordering partner products via galleries, etc....

Encouraging customers to use CSS to "hide" galleries from public view will either build a false impression about what they are getting (a wrong customer expectation is the #1 sin in privacy or security) or set them up for disappointment in the future when more new features that list public galleries are added.

Instead, as I have suggested, the better long term solution for everyone is to use unlisted galleries where privacy or non-public access is desired and solve any usability problems that people seem to have with that. Unlisted galleries are already blocked from all forms of "user discoverable" access and Smugmug is already operating under a design-promise to maintain that going forward. For example, unlisted galleries don't show in the mobile interface and it was an automatic design decision for them to implement it that way because it's part of their overall design goal.

Andy
Mar-29-2008, 04:47 PM
Andy can I ask you to confirm whether you think I am making a valid point here?
I think that you are overbuttoning yourself. I think that we have ways for you to hide galleries from the public. I think that we allow nearly infinite customizing. I think that we have a bug with the normal browser use of /iphone, and I hope we can address that bit soon.

stuartb
Mar-29-2008, 04:53 PM
jfriend ?????? CSS features to 'hide' galleries already exist. No one is asking for them to be added. Either use them or dont use them. The choice is yours.

Can we please stay on track here . . no-one is asking for 'new' features . . . we just want to be able to have some control over the rather simplistic iphone interface as it is completely out of sync with the controls available to the main Smugmug homepage.

stuartb
Mar-29-2008, 04:58 PM
I think that we have ways for you to hide galleries from the public.

Andy, you are seriously suggesting that I change how my normal Smugmug homepage works in order to protect myself from the inedequacies of the iphone interface?

I think that we allow nearly infinite customizing
You allow zero customizing on the iphone interface.

I think we have exhausted this for now. I shall post no further on this topic as I am sure it is becoming boring for those who are not interested. I shall watch developments with interest. Thanks for the feedback.

mbellot
Mar-29-2008, 05:48 PM
Andy, you are seriously suggesting that I change how my normal Smugmug homepage works in order to protect myself from the inedequacies of the iphone interface?
Sure sounds like it, huh? Unfortunately you're not the only one who would need to make such a change...

The only way I can see to get rid of this glaring hole in a feature I don't want is to password protect (so navigation still works) the galleries I absolutely don't want appearing in RSS or on /iphone and then put the password out in the open so visitors who come in they way I already have set up can find it easily.

High tech security at its finest.

You allow zero customizing on the iphone interface.
As well as zero options with respect to RSS feeds (other than total site lockdown).

I think we have exhausted this for now. I shall post no further on this topic as I am sure it is becoming boring for those who are not interested. I shall watch developments with interest. Thanks for the feedback.
Stuart, I wouldn't expect too much. Andy has already made it perfectly clear he doesn't see it as an issue.

I think that you are overbuttoning yourself.
Many pros "button up" too much. I'm a pro. I sell my work. I want my work to be seen by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Stuart, do you get the hint yet? We're "buttoning up" too much.:rolleyes

I'm rather happy that /iPhone is there so I (or anyone with an iPhone, or many types of mobile devices) can browse my site anytime I/they want to.
Great. Good for you that you want anyone to browse your site from a mobile device.

I don't. Why can't I have that option?

I'm not sure why making them 'unlisted' won't work for you? You can still give them links to their galleries. Then they won't show on the iPhone.
Because (again) unlisted galleries break navigation.

jfriend
Mar-29-2008, 06:36 PM
jfriend ?????? CSS features to 'hide' galleries already exist. No one is asking for them to be added. Either use them or dont use them. The choice is yours.

Can we please stay on track here . . no-one is asking for 'new' features . . . we just want to be able to have some control over the rather simplistic iphone interface as it is completely out of sync with the controls available to the main Smugmug homepage.

I wasn't talking about CSS features. It looks to me like you are asking for features to be added to the mobile interface that let you hide public galleries.

Allen
Mar-29-2008, 07:14 PM
Sure sounds like it, huh? Unfortunately you're not the only one who would need to make such a change...

The only way I can see to get rid of this glaring hole in a feature I don't want is to password protect (so navigation still works) the galleries I absolutely don't want appearing in RSS or on /iphone and then put the password out in the open so visitors who come in they way I already have set up can find it easily.

...

Great. Good for you that you want anyone to browse your site from a mobile device.

I don't. Why can't I have that option?
I browse with a pocketPC not an iPhone, you want those and all other mobile devices disabled also? btw, the sites are not set for true mobile browsing, you would need a whole new set of rules applied. But at least using the /iPhone link I can view my photos. ... and another problem is with right click protection on none of the thumbs show in non-iPhone view, only the blank gifs.

Because (again) unlisted galleries break navigation. :scratch There is no navigationon using /iPhone so how can it break?

mbellot
Mar-29-2008, 08:05 PM
I browse with a pocketPC not an iPhone, you want those and all other mobile devices disabled also? btw, the sites are not set for true mobile browsing, you would need a whole new set of rules applied. But at least using the /iPhone link I can view my photos. ... and another problem is with right click protection on none of the thumbs show in non-iPhone view, only the blank gifs.
If you're using the /iphone interface then yes, I want those mobile devices disabled also. Simply providing the option to disable the /iphone interface solves the problem.

Its my content. Shouldn't I be able to decide how (look and feel) people experience it?

Come in through the front door (my real homepage), or don't bother if you haven't been given an alternate URL to start someplace else.

:scratch There is no navigationon using /iPhone so how can it break?
Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Unlisted galleries don't work with normal (PC browser) navigation - by design, which is why I resorted to the hidden category/subcategory hack in the first place.

If I create a category "Dog Shows", subcategory "2008" and put 12 galleries (one for each month) in the subcategory I have four "supported" options (please tell me if I'm missing something).

1. Public galleries, no hacks. Everything is visible to everyone. (Zero security)

2. Unlisted galleries. Everything is invisible from the homepage, visitors must be directly linked (sharegroup, vanity url, etc possible) to each gallery. However, if you follow the breadcrumb from the January gallery back up to the 2008 subcategory page you are presented with an empty page! (cumbersome without sharegroups, broken navigation no matter what)

3. Password protected. Category/subcategory/galleries are now "visible" (padlocks or featured photos) and navigation works once you enter the password. Requires disseminating the password to everyone who wants to view the galleries (cumbersome).

4. Unlisted and password protected. Combine the deficits of 2 and 3 (broken navigation, password dissemination issues, possible large list of direct links without a sharegroup that still doesn't alleviate the navigation problem).

The fifth (unsupported) option allows for keeping categories/subcategories hidden from people simply browsing my site. Yes, anyone with minimal knowledge can figure out what I'm hiding, but they would have to look for it in the first place. How many sites do you bother slogging through the source and CSS looking for "hidden" stuff?

And it keeps navigation within the subcategory of galleries fully functional.

Of course, the downside to my (unsupported) method is that all my "hidden" galleries are now totally visible on an alternate interface which didn't exist when I signed up and that I don't particularly want active in its present incarnation.

Allen
Mar-29-2008, 09:06 PM
There is no navigationon using /iPhone so how can it break? ..

Are you being intentionally obtuse?
.. Maybe didn't explain what I meant.:D Using the /iPhone link I click Albums and all I see is page after page of gallery links. Click a gallery and all I see is a photo filling the screen and can scroll down and see all photos in the gallery, each one filling the screen. Nothing else shows.

Clicking Most Popular and again only get the full screen photos.
Only navigation I see is for the timeline selections.

cdonovan
Apr-03-2008, 11:58 AM
Thx Christine :)

I have no idea - and I don't want to distract our Sorcerers from improving the Cart, working on coupons, packages, etc.

:deadhorseI know, I know this topic was somewhat dead. But, I couldn't help but think of this comment. I know it's not up to me to tell the people at smugmug how to do their jobs, but this comment, and no offence meant to you Andy, as maybe i've taken it out of text but....I just couldn't get it out of my head.

I don't understand why doing something to tweak an existing problem with an existing product is a bad thing. Why have a whole bunch of little things out there that people aren't totally happy with instead of a few things that work really well for each individual?

This is a major thing, in my opinion. I know screen captures exist and that there is even software being marketed to facilitate it, but this small little "iphone" thing made a big mess in the way that I have to now deal with my galleries and my clients.

Is that a good thing for smugmug, to have lots of shiny features that fall apart, break or just plain don't work for the consumer? Why isn't the focus to make this place better...something that I KNOW is a goal, by fixing the features that are already here first and then moving on to reveal the new features?
It comes across as a half a$$ed job.

Now please don't read negative tones in that message, I'm not criticising, I guess that I'm just trying to figure out why concerns about current products are pushed to the side to flash the promise of newer and brighter things in our faces instead.

I want to reiterate that there is nowhere other than smugmug for me, the customer service blows me away, I'm thrilled with the helping nature and the type of service that is second to none, I'm not trying to be critical, just really curious about the reasoning!:D

Andy
Apr-03-2008, 12:07 PM
:deadhorseI know, I know this topic was somewhat dead. But, I couldn't help but think of this comment. I know it's not up to me to tell the people at smugmug how to do their jobs, but this comment, and no offence meant to you Andy, as maybe i've taken it out of text but....I just couldn't get it out of my head.

I don't understand why doing something to tweak an existing problem with an existing product is a bad thing. Why have a whole bunch of little things out there that people aren't totally happy with instead of a few things that work really well for each individual?

This is a major thing, in my opinion. I know screen captures exist and that there is even software being marketed to facilitate it, but this small little "iphone" thing made a big mess in the way that I have to now deal with my galleries and my clients.

That the iphone browsing interface doesn't obey user CSS is *not* a bug and so it's not fair for you to say it's half-assed.

Is that a good thing for smugmug, to have lots of shiny features that fall apart, break or just plain don't work for the consumer? Why isn't the focus to make this place better...something that I KNOW is a goal, by fixing the features that are already here first and then moving on to reveal the new features?
It comes across as a half a$$ed job.

Now please don't read negative tones in that message, I'm not criticising, I guess that I'm just trying to figure out why concerns about current products are pushed to the side to flash the promise of newer and brighter things in our faces instead.

I want to reiterate that there is nowhere other than smugmug for me, the customer service blows me away, I'm thrilled with the helping nature and the type of service that is second to none, I'm not trying to be critical, just really curious about the reasoning!:DChristine, I like that you criticize. Don't ever stop.

We've never heard about this before, and nobody's ever had the same complaint. Doesn't mean yours isn't valid, Christine. But it also means that we will take everyone's in put into consideration.

I very much doubt we'll change the iPhone interface anytime soon, I'm sorry to say :( I hope we can fix the bug though.

I've given my reasons, as a professional shooter and as SmugMug as well.

Allen
Apr-03-2008, 12:13 PM
..but this small little "iphone" thing made a big mess in the way that I have to now deal with my galleries and my clients. ...
So don't give the iPhone link to your Clients. It's an internal Smug site thing
and not world wide. How would they ever find it, do your clients
browse these forums?

Andy
Apr-03-2008, 12:19 PM
just really curious about the reasoning!:D


Dear Christine, I heard about you from one of the Moms at the last horse show. They told me about your work, and I went right then and there on my iPhone - wow, your work is amazing! I'd like to book a session with you and my four girls, with their horses. They're quadruplets, do you think you can handle it? LOL I am interested in making photo books, senior portraits for all of them, and a bunch of quality portraits of the girls with their horses, to give to everyone in my extended family. I suspect I'll need 25 each of 16x20 and 20x30 sized prints, can you handle that?

Look forward to hearing from you,

Mrs. Gotrocks.


http://img.skitch.com/20080403-gmewcqc9g156h6s5326pp5f3tx.preview.jpg


PS: I have 5 champion Samoyeds, would you do dog portraits for us? We'll want to include all the girls, as well :D

stuartb
Apr-03-2008, 01:58 PM
. . It's an internal Smug site thing
and not world wide. How would they ever find it . .

I know I said I wouldnt post again on this topic but Allen this is too much! Internal Smugmug site thing? Who are you kidding . . iphone target sales is 16 million iphones in 18 months . . ipod touch sales were 9.4Million sold in 2007 Q4 alone . . every one of them has direct broadband access to smugmug iphone pages (with help from Google too), plus there is a featured link on Apples web site! Not to mention every other phone that has web access.

This is a HUGE marketing coup for smugmug . . . its fantastic exposure . . they dont want folks having the option to turn this 'feature' off.

Christine . . this is an easy one for them to implement . . . the fact that they arent going to should tell you that there's a clear business reason for it . . . . . . they might have to suffer losing a few disgruntled customers . . but remember its a much bigger game that is being played. They can only hope they have gambled correctly. I think theres a lot being pinned on the fact that most Smugmug users probably dont yet know their images are being made available in this way.

Allen
Apr-03-2008, 02:34 PM
I know I said I wouldnt post again on this topic but Allen this is too much! Internal Smugmug site thing? Who are you kidding . . iphone target sales is 16 million iphones in 18 months . . ipod touch sales were 9.4Million sold in 2007 Q4 alone . . every one of them has direct broadband access to smugmug iphone pages (with help from Google too), plus there is a featured link on Apples web site! Not to mention every other phone that has web access.

This is a HUGE marketing coup for smugmug . . . its fantastic exposure . . they dont want folks having the option to turn this 'feature' off.

Christine . . this is an easy one for them to implement . . . the fact that they arent going to should tell you that there's a clear business reason for it . . . . . . they might have to suffer losing a few disgruntled customers . . but remember its a much bigger game that is being played. They can only hope they have gambled correctly. I think theres a lot being pinned on the fact that most Smugmug users probably dont yet know their images are being made available in this way.
...smugmug/iPhone is an internal smugmug link. It's their code. Go to any
other website and see if adding /iPhone behind their link works.

Edit: being an internal link can a redirect be set up so it goes to your normal homepage?

Andy
Apr-03-2008, 03:52 PM
. . . its fantastic exposure . .

Yup, for you as a pro, too.

What's next? Wristwatch Browsing Interfaces? VR Eyeglasses Browsing Interfaces? I want to be found by any and all. And *anything* I don't want found, I'll make unlisted or locked.

cdonovan
Apr-03-2008, 05:06 PM
One More Question....


Did you happen to get Mrs Gotrocks email address or phone number Andy!:D


Ok, I understand, I'm thankful that it was brought to your attention about the non right click protection with the iphone extension. and now I'll lay it to rest. Please do update us if and when there are any changes

:evilI thought maybe if I cried long and hard enough someone would send me an iphone to give me the ability to look through all the galleries so effortlessly to see the point of all this, and then I'd shut up!!:bad

mbellot
Apr-03-2008, 07:23 PM
they dont want folks having the option to turn this 'feature' off.
Which is why I pretty much gave up on the topic as well.

I do find it annoying that such regularly superb customer service can be spoiled by such an attitude. Its the same attitude that comes through when someone asks for a self-fulfillment feature.

I also found another side effect of the iPhone interface. It does not report activity to Google Analytics since my JS isn't executed, so I can't even see traffic coming in that way. :rolleyes


And *anything* I don't want found, I'll make unlisted or locked.
And any image I don't want to be linked, I disable external linking.

Too bad the iphone interface, which is nothing but external links to my photos, doesn't respect my choice. :scratch

Andy
Apr-03-2008, 09:30 PM
Which is why I pretty much gave up on the topic as well.

I do find it annoying that such regularly superb customer service can be spoiled by such an attitude. Its the same attitude that comes through when someone asks for a self-fulfillment feature.
Give up? Why on earth would you do that?

Hi, we have discussed this internally, we have heard you folks here in this thread. Nothing would happen immediately, and so all I can do is tell you "thanks" for telling us how important this is to you, and so, "thanks" again :)

I'm also entitled to my personal opinion, which I've given here in this thread, too.

bwg
Apr-03-2008, 09:32 PM
Too bad the iphone interface, which is nothing but external links to my photos, doesn't respect my choice. :scratchExternal links are links from non-smugmug sites. I can't post your photos on my blog if you have external linking disabled. The iPhone interface is a SmugMug site. It uses a web browser just the same as someone visiting your smugmug site on a normal computer.

A computer in someone's pocket doesnt make it any more "external" than a computer on someone's desk in Siberia. :dunno

Gregg Hall
Apr-03-2008, 09:59 PM
http://img.skitch.com/20080403-gmewcqc9g156h6s5326pp5f3tx.preview.jpg

My question about this, is there is no contact information as far as I can find on the iphone set up, there is no way to purchase pictures as far as I can tell, so how exactly is it supposed to help us if people can't purchase the photos or contact us?

stuartb
Apr-03-2008, 10:36 PM
OK I promise . . second last post on this from me . .

. .for you as a Pro too.

But thats the point I fear you missing Andy. No-one would disagree with you that this is 'a good thing' for folks wanting exposure . . but I am NOT a professional photographer. My needs are different. I want to turn this 'exposure' off. I am an Architect who ISNT trying to sell images. I have a few select people I want to give my public gallery urls too. I am more than happy with the relative anonanimity and control that SmugIslands and the CSS tools give me, and very happy with the theoretical 'risk' of tech-minded people knowing how to circumvent these controls but I am NOT happy that 10million iphones can see an iphone version of my public galleries with NO control on my part, and NO ability for me to opt out. It seems totally at odds with the level of control that the regular Smugmug pages are sold with.

'Security' is relative. Do you leave your prized photographic equipment : -
a - in a bank vault (think passworded and unlisted)
b - in the trunk of your locked car (think public galleries with Smugisland CSS controls to hide certain categories)
c - on the back seat of your unlocked car at rock concert with 10 million people at it (think iphone pages)

My money is on 'b'.

being an internal link, can a redirect be set up so it goes to your normal homepage?

I reckon an optional redirect would take a whole 3 seconds . . (or maybe 2 seconds if your in a hurry) to implement. You could even have a control panel button for it. Thats whats so frustrating . . we have reached the obvious conclusion here that this is clearly a political or business issue (in favour of Smugmug) and not a technical one. Power and Pro users deserve better.

stuartb
Apr-03-2008, 11:13 PM
My question about this, is there is no contact information as far as I can find on the iphone set up, there is no way to purchase pictures as far as I can tell, so how exactly is it supposed to help us if people can't purchase the photos or contact us?

There is a link on the iphone pages to your regular Smugmug pages. It works well and its actually pretty impressive the way it displays. Remember that iphones etc have FULL web access at broadband speeds, so they can view your normal smugmug pages too (just as Firefox and IE can view iphone pages). The iphone pages on Smugmug are just 'simple' html pages arranged in the optimum format for display and finger-touch navigation in the iphone. CSS controls on these pages wont work, hence the big debate about being allowed to opt out if you have gone to the bother of customising your regular smugmug shomepage and you are unhappy with the (relative) crudeness of how the iphone pages work.

Andy
Apr-04-2008, 04:58 AM
My question about this, is there is no contact information as far as I can find on the iphone set up, there is no way to purchase pictures as far as I can tell, so how exactly is it supposed to help us if people can't purchase the photos or contact us?Put a contact gallery in :thumb
And I would think, after they viewed on a phone, when they got to their computers, they'd go to real SmugMug.

Wow I really am stumped here at the thinking - folks, this is just a phone browser. There *will* be other devices dreamed of :D

Andy
Apr-04-2008, 05:01 AM
OK I promise . . second last post on this from me . .
Silly. Don't stop posting!
But thats the point I fear you missing Andy. No-one would disagree with you that this is 'a good thing' for folks wanting exposure . . but I am NOT a professional photographer. My needs are different. I want to turn this 'exposure' off.
So turn it off. Galleries unlisted, site locked if you want, galleries locked, etc.

We'll surely consider your request for opting out of 'iphone' and similar type browsing experiences. I can't promise that we'll change things, nor can I promise if / when. But this whole issue is being discussed by all of us in the company, right now.

Iphones (and other gasp! mobile devices) will display your public galleries if people will browse to them using the /iphone link.

We're going to fix the normal browser usage of the /iphone link, too.

What more can I say :D

mbellot
Apr-04-2008, 05:28 AM
Give up? Why on earth would you do that?
Why? Because comments like this that keep coming...

So turn it off. Galleries unlisted, site locked if you want, galleries locked, etc.
Stuart and I have both stated several times that unlisted/locked galleries do not work for us (at an intellectual level for our customers, not that there is a genuine functional issue).

CSS hiding is "sufficient" when people are viewing through the traditional SmugMug interface.

Personally I'd like to have opt-out options for all of the optional interfaces (iphone, RSS, Atom, and anonymous API usage) without having to resort to hidden/locked galleries.

External links are links from non-smugmug sites. I can't post your photos on my blog if you have external linking disabled. The iPhone interface is a SmugMug site.
Yes, it is A SmugMug site, but its not MY SmugMug site. It has no bio or other contact info, it has absolutely none of my customizations either. It is an end run around (IMHO) the spirit of the "no external links allowed" option.

Andy
Apr-04-2008, 05:35 AM
Why? Because comments like this that keep coming...


Stuart and I have both stated several times that unlisted/locked galleries do not work for us (at an intellectual level for our customers, not that there is a genuine functional issue).

CSS hiding is "sufficient" when people are viewing through the traditional SmugMug interface.

Personally I'd like to have opt-out options for all of the optional interfaces (iphone, RSS, Atom, and anonymous API usage) without having to resort to hidden/locked galleries.


Yes, it is A SmugMug site, but its not MY SmugMug site. It has no bio or other contact info, it has absolutely none of my customizations either. It is an end run around (IMHO) the spirit of the "no external links allowed" option.It's not an external link, as Lee has already pointed out.

We have heard you loud and clear thanks! I'm sorry that you don't feel our options for privacy, public, unlisted, password etc aren't enough.

We are discussing all of this, and I thank you again for making your point. It's very important for us to hear from you, good/bad/all of it! Don't stop posting.

Gregg Hall
Apr-04-2008, 06:44 AM
Put a contact gallery in :thumb
And I would think, after they viewed on a phone, when they got to their computers, they'd go to real SmugMug.

Wow I really am stumped here at the thinking - folks, this is just a phone browser. There *will* be other devices dreamed of :D

I have a contact Gallery, inorder for it to look professional (at least to me) on the regular site, that I spent a fair amount of time customizing, it is set to unlisted and is linked to from a nav bar. Since it is unlisted, it doesn't show on the iphone set up. So I get to decide to either mess with the site I have customized to accomidate the iphone set up, or just leave it and deal with it.

To be honest, I guess my problem with it is really the same problem I had with square thumbs being set as the default. Why is smugmug making decisions about my site for me instead of allowing me to make the decisions myself. (yes I know there is a work around for the square thumbs, but why should I have had to go figure it out and then do it, when I was happy with the existing way it was done)

Neither this issue or the square thumbs is enough to make me even think of leaving smugmug, but if this is the trend, where smugmug makes choices for me, evenutally something might come around that does force me away. Just some food for thought.

Andy
Apr-04-2008, 07:01 AM
I have a contact Gallery, inorder for it to look professional (at least to me) on the regular site, that I spent a fair amount of time customizing, it is set to unlisted and is linked to from a nav bar. Since it is unlisted, it doesn't show on the iphone set up. So I get to decide to either mess with the site I have customized to accomidate the iphone set up, or just leave it and deal with it.

To be honest, I guess my problem with it is really the same problem I had with square thumbs being set as the default. Why is smugmug making decisions about my site for me instead of allowing me to make the decisions myself. (yes I know there is a work around for the square thumbs, but why should I have had to go figure it out and then do it, when I was happy with the existing way it was done)

Neither this issue or the square thumbs is enough to make me even think of leaving smugmug, but if this is the trend, where smugmug makes choices for me, evenutally something might come around that does force me away. Just some food for thought.
Since the iPhone interface honors public & unlisted, and passwords etc, we never felt the need to give an 'opt out' choice. Frankly, I don't know if it's even possible, but our engineers and whole company have seen yours, and the rest of the comments and feedback.

Oh the Thumbnails stuff is getting a v2 enhancement, very soon :thumb

mbellot
Apr-09-2008, 12:57 PM
Since the iPhone interface honors public & unlisted, and passwords etc, we never felt the need to give an 'opt out' choice. Frankly, I don't know if it's even possible, but our engineers and whole company have seen yours, and the rest of the comments and feedback.

Oh the Thumbnails stuff is getting a v2 enhancement, very soon :thumb
Back from the dead, thanks to this (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=659616&postcount=2) post by ivar saying that adding support for password protected galleries to the iphone interface is something "we want to implement".

As far as an opt-out not being "even possible"... baloney. When someone adds the /iphone you're doing a re-direct, so a simple check for the "opt-out" flag could be done at that time and land back the browser on the (real) user's home page.

Andy
Apr-09-2008, 01:02 PM
Back from the dead,
nothing's ever dead here on Dgrin :D The posts are always around, searchable :thumb

thanks to this (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=659616&postcount=2) post by ivar saying that adding support for password protected galleries to the iphone interface is something "we want to implement".

As far as an opt-out not being "even possible"... baloney.

I don't know if it is, or isn't. But I do know that this entire thread has been read by our engineers.

Thanks for posting again, and telling us how important it is to you.

rla1022
Apr-14-2008, 06:39 PM
nothing's ever dead here on Dgrin :D The posts are always around, searchable :thumb

I don't know if it is, or isn't. But I do know that this entire thread has been read by our engineers.

Thanks for posting again, and telling us how important it is to you.
Not to stir the pot, but i thought i would share with the community what i saw at engadget regarding this topic. Apparently a feature of firmware 2.9 as well as iphone 2.0 is going to be able to do screen captures and save images.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/14/latest-iphone-beta-firmware-does-full-screen-captures-saves-web/

The copy of the headline "You might have heard that the latest iPhone 2.0 beta firmware (http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/18/iphone-firmware-2-0-hands-on/) allows users to save web images to its running camera roll for later download to its host machine (or sharing via email). Well, a reliable source let us know that the image capturing good times don't end there: the iPhone now capable of taking full screen caps (like the one above) simply by holding the sleep button, then tapping the home button. We haven't personally tested either technique (we already know what you're thinking: we can't say whether it captures screens from a video), but apparently it flashes white to indicate the cap's been taken and the image has been added to your roll. Let's hope these two neato features make it to the release firmware."

What is smugmug planning to do about this? I bet a little fast track should be necessarey to protect the pros whose work can be stolen this way.

Andy
Apr-14-2008, 07:03 PM
What is smugmug planning to do about this? I bet a little fast track should be necessarey to protect the pros whose work can be stolen this way.
What should be done about it? Screen capturing is nothing new :)

On a Mac: cmd-shift-4 and it's instant.
On a Mac: http://www.skitch.com

On a PC: PrtScren
On a PC: http://www.techsmith.com/ SnagIt

And probably dozens of other free, shareware and open source stuff.

This is not new technology. If you are concerned about screen capturing, watermarking your images is the way to go.

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/152357886_k3VbU-XL-6.jpg

rla1022
Apr-14-2008, 07:19 PM
What should be done about it? Screen capturing is nothing new :)

On a Mac: cmd-shift-4 and it's instant.
On a Mac: http://www.skitch.com

On a PC: PrtScren
On a PC: http://www.techsmith.com/ SnagIt

And probably dozens of other free, shareware and open source stuff.

This is not new technology. If you are concerned about screen capturing, watermarking your images is the way to go.

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/152357886_k3VbU-Th-6.jpg
I agree with the watermarking. I personally love the ability and will love the ability to save to my ipod touch. I just thought this was relevenat to the topic

mbrady
Apr-17-2008, 03:11 PM
Forgive me if this particular point is already being discussed. I just tried this for the first time. I have one category that has several unlisted galleries in it. In my regular (non-iphone) version of the site, that category does not display at all, but in the iphone version it does display. If I select it, I get a message about there being no public galleries. But why does the category display at all in the iphone version when it doesn't in the regular version?

Andy
Apr-17-2008, 03:50 PM
Forgive me if this particular point is already being discussed. I just tried this for the first time. I have one category that has several unlisted galleries in it. In my regular (non-iphone) version of the site, that category does not display at all, but in the iphone version it does display. If I select it, I get a message about there being no public galleries. But why does the category display at all in the iphone version when it doesn't in the regular version?Bug, it's being worked on... sorry about that :(

StevenV
Sep-13-2008, 12:47 PM
You're not alone. Many pros "button up" too much. I'm a pro. I sell my work. I want my work to be seen by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

...

Don't shut out a single visitor or viewer, in my opinion.

viewer, fine. downloading's quite another thing.

My son just got a new non-iPhone and sure 'nuf he can download my pictures by going to the /iphone url, which means that so can his friends... including the ones that, when they want a photo for their website, I've been saying "buy a digital downlad."

81dollar
Oct-03-2008, 12:08 PM
Since the iPhone interface honors public & unlisted, and passwords etc, we never felt the need to give an 'opt out' choice. Frankly, I don't know if it's even possible, but our engineers and whole company have seen yours, and the rest of the comments and feedback.

Oh the Thumbnails stuff is getting a v2 enhancement, very soon :thumb

any news on the ability to "opt out" of the iphone pages?

Andy
Oct-03-2008, 12:41 PM
any news on the ability to "opt out" of the iphone pages?
No, I'm sorry.

mbellot
Oct-03-2008, 09:01 PM
No, I'm sorry.

Any plans to even consider it?

Andy
Oct-04-2008, 04:10 AM
Any plans to even consider it?
I don't even know if that's possible, I'll try to find out.

mbellot
Oct-04-2008, 08:39 PM
I don't even know if that's possible, I'll try to find out.


A simple global setting to force redirection from /iphone to the full home page would be all thats required.

You're already doing the reverse by parsing the /iphone in the url and redirecting to the alternate interface.

Seems (on the surface) not only possible, but down right simple. :thumb

EDIT:

Just tried something to positively confirm the "early" parsing of /iphone.

I created a new category named iphone and then created a gallery with one photo in it.

Unlike all the other categories (Events, etc) that can be accessed from http://smuser.smugmug.com/CatName the new iphone category gets redirected.

It even breaks breadcrumbs. In the gallery, if you click on the iphone category link to back up one level redirects to the alternate interface.

dgentile
Nov-04-2008, 12:44 PM
Oh my...

I wish I would not have been surfing tonight - honestly.

Frankly, I'm a tad upset.

I used to work in the IT business while ago (another life ;) )... I'm also a bit paranoid when it comes to general data related security and stuff like this...
I wouldn't call me over-the-top-paranoid,... but maybe a bit...

My IT Days are gone... I run a smithy and machine shop these days... sometimes parttime photograph and do a lot of photographing for my own business...

And recently - with the amazing help of others here on dgrin - I spent an awesome amount of time on customizing my smugmug website, which is a mixture of my personal photography stuff and my business related shots...

and now what? www.dgentile.com/iphone basically kills the effort, disables right klick protection (yes, I knew about screencaptures well since windows 3.0 ;) ... and I even had a nifty tool on the even older solaris box running an old X-Window System...) - still right-click and save is what 99% of the users out there will try and for about 85% of the "public" images I'm happy to have it.

Also I spent a good amount of time categorizing my galleries, setting up a structure which allows me to have both my hobby photography and my business stuff "together" without disturbing each other...
again, the /iphone link kills that effort with it's first link (the chaotic show all galleries thing).

RSS Feeds are another topic... but at least, for the initial moment to get the rss feed someone has to actually browse my real website.
Although I would prefer an option for each gallery to be able to switch FEEDS off completely.... but that's another debate.

I don't have an iPhone... and quite probably will never have one, as it wouldn't survive one month at a machine shop...
I truly like my iMac though and am not too happy with the last windows box... so I'm not to be considerd someone who's generally anti-iphone...


To make my point - it should be the choice of the page-owner (in that case a paying smugmug pro customer) on what type of media and format he/she would like to share the photos.
Initially I chose a service being able to be CUSTOMIZED (for good reason),... whilst the /iphone link provides a link back to the "real" page... it's too late for that. my branding, my layout, my stuff has been "broken".

and honestly, it should be my decision alone if would want iPhone users to have the ability to get a DEDICATED format...
as has been mentioned, the Safari browser on the iPhone has no limitation to actually go and visit my real smugmug website....


I thus conclude my rant/post with TWO requests:
1. MAKE THE IPHONE VIEW OPTIONAL.... Please.
I mean, simple as that, have a new option within a gallery that says "Show on iPhone Website"... if it's checked, the gallery will be listed on the dedicated /iphone page .. logic tells me that if this would be possible (and technically it's perfectly possible) that then if I have not checked this option for any of my galleries my "iphone website" will be empty - that would be perfectly fine with me.

2. MAKE FEEDS Optional too... I mean it can't be too difficult to have a global option or same as the idea above with the iPhone option for each gallery....



SmugMug - I'm a pro customer for only almost a year now, and so far your customer support, your service, the OPTIONS have been AMAZING!
It is maybe especially because of this why I am a bit upset about the whole /iphone thing.... I signed up because I wanted to be in control of my photos and the related photo-sharing... I decided to go with a pro account because I wanted FULL Customizing options... because I wanted the freedom to decide how and in what way I present my photos to the public or to selected persons... and this is at least in some ways no quite becoming undermined.
Frankly speaking, I know the iPhone is a cool gadget and it has set a few trends going when it comes to modern comm-devices.... But I would like to be able to choose whether my page is a "part" of a dedicated iPhone thing or not.


THANK YOU...

jfriend
Nov-04-2008, 01:32 PM
Oh my...

I wish I would not have been surfing tonight - honestly.

Frankly, I'm a tad upset.

I am not going to weigh in on the iPhone access to your galleries, but I do think you should have all the information here just so you know how things fully work.

Smugmug does have two mechanisms for keeping the public out of your galleries. The first is an "unlisted" gallery. That's like an unlisted phone number. There's no password, but the gallery isn't advertised to the public and requires knowledge or discovery of 7 digit numeric code and a 5 digit alpha-numeric code (gallery ID and key). So, it isn't full security, but it's hidden pretty well.

The second is password protection. The existence of the gallery is advertised, but a code is required before entry is granted.

Hiding galleries with CSS or Javascript is NOT a security mechanism at all. Heck the existence of the gallery is right there in your HTML page to any one who wants to look or any robot who walks your page contents. Even search engines will find things hidden with CSS. CSS just tells the browser to not display it even though the HTML is all right there in the page.

Further, Smugmug has several other ways that any agent can fully discover all public galleries. They have an API that I or any tool written to use it can use to get a complete listing of all your public galleries. The API will not return unlisted galleries (unless you log in to that account with the API first). This API is used by many third party tools and by some third pary products doing Smugmug integration.

So, while you may be asking for /iPhone control, I wanted to make sure you know that if you aren't using the built-in and supported mechanisms for hiding or securing galleries, there are lots of other ways in and the site is designed that way on purpose because CSS isn't a security or privacy mechanism, it's just a presentation tool. /iPhone is just one way in.

This probably isn't what you were prepared to hear, but if you really don't want people to find some galleries, then you need to use one of the supported ways for keeping them private. And, when you use one of the supported ways, they won't show in the /iPhone interface at all.

dgentile
Nov-04-2008, 01:48 PM
jfriend,

thanks for the answer - BUT (yes it had to come, didn't it ;) )

But... security is one issue and I am very well aware of all the security related options smugmug gives me - and make good use of those for where think it's useful.

my main concern, grieve, gripe or whatever it may be called I have with the iPhone formated DEDICATED page is not merely a security issue.
it is, that it willfully breaks my layouting, offers a direct access to all galleries without my other "text" and infos on my website. Removes all my web-based branding and formating and thus deprieves me of a way to control in WHAT MANNER to present the stuff I want to have "on show" public or not.

the secuirty part is clear on my end of the things, those things which are private are private as much as they can be with smug mug (unlisted, password protected)... and I am well aware that these will not show up on the dedicated iphone website.

but again - my problem is not only about the fact that it breaks the simple but in many cases still effective "blockade" of rightclick & saving protection... believe me the average joe is not going to screen copy stuff, cut it out in photoshop to get an image limited to his screen resolution (ok, there are even ways around this)...

But why spend an aweful lot of time customizing and finetuning my website's layout...
why spend a lot of time custom categorizing my gallery structure...
why spend time with things like contact forms, etc...
why - if smugmug basically decides to give every iPhone user the pleasure of browsing my galleries without all the work I've done... and any computer-savy user too who knows about the /iphone link...

Simple as that... I want FULL CONTROL over what way my stuff is being displayd ...
I know that one can install tools to render all CSS Formating useless, I know that I can use automated browsers (bots) to download stuff... I know all that - but it requiers an effort - usually one the normal visitor of my photo-page doesn't make.

it's a bit like my shop... I have security windows (hard to break in...), secure door locks (very difficult to pick)... but if someone really want's to get in, he will - eventually.
the question is how much effort does it require.
... the iphone "feature" is like sticking the "off-switch" for my layout, and stuff right next to my website... or in case someone actually uses the iphone to activate it by default... and I have absolutely no choice if that is what I want or not.


don't get me wrong, I think it's cool that smugmug can offer iPhone support - really I do... but like feeds, I wish I could take control and say "sorry, I don't want it on my page"

jfriend
Nov-04-2008, 02:01 PM
jfriend,

thanks for the answer - BUT (yes it had to come, didn't it ;) )

Fair enough. I understand your point. I just wanted to make sure you understood the whole picture.

guttaperk
Nov-21-2008, 04:16 PM
I'm an iPhone user, and I just wanted to say:

Andy, thanks for setting things up just as they are. iPhone– formatted browsing is a major part of how I use SmugMug, and it's part of what made me willing to register.

I view some of the requests in this thread as being similar to their asking you to sabotage a highway so that brown cars can't pass in front of their house without their permission.

I'd say more, but I don't want to be disrespectful to anybody.

I'd just add that trying to obey them would be fair customer service, but a piss-poor business and technological decision.
*Good* customer service would be finding a way to address their concerns without spoiling mobile access.

This whole thing seems to be stemming from malformed customer expectations, which I guess couldn't be helped.

cheers

adrian
(a satisfied customer)

dgentile
Nov-22-2008, 12:05 AM
Adrian,

without getting disrespectful either, but your comments could be regarded as rather ignorant of some users needs... and after all every single paying customer has the right to voice his concerns and if the company is willing & able find a good solution.

your comparison to the highway and brown cars, from a logic point of view is quite flawed.
it's more like granting every one a peek inside front lawn, even though you've decided only to let visitors in through the main gate.
and as a landlord, that would be your perfect right?

whilst you can't remove the highway (and why would we)... Others and myself alike would like a way to say YES OR NO, to an access to our smugmug stuff in a iphone specific format, which is deprived of all the formatting, branding, information,... not to mention really makes it easy to download images, even though right click protection was enabled (I know that right click protection is not fool-proof,... but it does the job for 65% of the cases at least).
as a Pro-Customer on smugmug I can just say, that first with smugmugs customer support I have always been satisfied... that being the reason for me to stay.

OR as you seem to like allegories here's a different approach:
an art gallery.... they have opening times, decide how and where to hang the paintings, place the statues, install the correct spot- & ambient-lights, redesing the entrance area to match the current exhibition, etc, etc...
now enabling visitors to either take things home or view the pieces ripped out of their whole context would truly ruin the whole nice work the art-gallery has done to display the art in a specific way.
whether you personally like this decision or not, that is an entirely different story... but none the less it is without argue the galleries own good right to decide in what way they present the work...
again, that is really the same with my own photo-sharing...
I'm perfectly willing to share, to display chosen works to the public, but I want to control in what format and what way.
I ask you, honestly hands down, What is wrong with this wish?

and if you would chime in and say, that my CSS can be disabled, that a robotic crawler could be programmed to rip my pictures, that screenshots can be taken - sure,... a good burglar can break into a "real" art-gallery too and steal the paintings... there is always a way, but the question is: how much effort does it need, and is "average joe" able to pull it?


I have also always liked that they adapt new technologies quickly...
But I have never liked that things like RSS Feeds, and IPhone specific access pages are being FORCED on my account.... after when I signed up while ago, iphone access did not exist... and I had no option to "opt out" of this feature either.... so it's basically: "look, accept it or leave"... and that is what I don't like... besides the fact that I don't want a dedicated accesss for iphones (I mean, browse the real website with safari.., no problem here...)...

and adrian, it's fair to say, that no one here would want smugmug to shut down the iphone services completely... many just want control over their own account. And if that is not fair, than I don't know what would be.

and about offering a CHOICE for each customer whether he wants things like this or not being a bad business decision... well, I guess you should seriously think again, about how business does work.
Giving a choice is usually a welcome thing from the customers perspective.
For me, and I guess for others it would be VERY WELCOME and satisfying to have a custom on and off switch for these technologies...


I'm an iPhone user, and I just wanted to say:

Andy, thanks for setting things up just as they are. iPhone– formatted browsing is a major part of how I use SmugMug, and it's part of what made me willing to register.

I view some of the requests in this thread as being similar to their asking you to sabotage a highway so that brown cars can't pass in front of their house without their permission.

I'd say more, but I don't want to be disrespectful to anybody.

I'd just add that trying to obey them would be fair customer service, but a piss-poor business and technological decision.
*Good* customer service would be finding a way to address their concerns without spoiling mobile access.

This whole thing seems to be stemming from malformed customer expectations, which I guess couldn't be helped.

cheers

adrian
(a satisfied customer)

guttaperk
Nov-22-2008, 01:28 PM
without getting disrespectful either, but your comments could be regarded as rather ignorant of some users needs...

While I am certainly ignorant of the details of your needs (just as you are ignorant of mine), I think that the issue here is that I am disparaging your wishes.


your comparison to the highway and brown cars, from a logic point of view is quite flawed.
it's more like granting every one a peek inside front lawn, even though you've decided only to let visitors in through the main gate.
and as a landlord, that would be your perfect right?
I accept your quibble, but it doesn't actually change my point.

There comes a point where, in your desire for privacy, one can just ruin other people's experience and make oneself look like an idiot.

So while the desire not to have people peek inside your front lawn is understandable, 50-foot-high walls in residential areas are illegal in many countries; neighborhood associations often limit them; and if you're renting a house, landlords generally won't accomodate you in building them.

I understand the desire, I just don't agree that the request is sensible or reasonable. And, after all, all this is about *public* galleries. If you really want that much privacy, go inside!



I'm perfectly willing to share, to display chosen works to the public, but I want to control in what format and what way.
I ask you, honestly hands down, What is wrong with this wish?
The wish is understandable, but the simple fact is this:
That's not the way that the web works. You don't ever really have that level of control. You never did.
That's what I was alluding to when I spoke of unrealistic expectations.
Different web browsers render things differently. Most have options to disregard all the little javascript tricks that photographers delude themselves into viewing as protection.
Trying to change this in the name of artistic consistency or security locks out a significant proportion of your viewership without ever really giving you the consistency or the security you wanted.

This issue isn't a new problem with you, though; at every stage of the web's development, there have been people trying for greater levels of artistic control, and waves of people deriding them as blind fools afterwards. Browser-specific design, complicated table-based layouts, people have always tried tricks to try to bend the web to their artistic will, and it usually ends up just being a pain in the ass for everyone else.

Years in, I've come to the idea that it really is best to work within the general design specifications of how the web works, as opposed to trying to pretend that a sports car is a truck or vice versa.


and if you would chime in and say, that my CSS can be disabled, that a robotic crawler could be programmed to rip my pictures, that screenshots can be taken - sure,... a good burglar can break into a "real" art-gallery too and steal the paintings... there is always a way, but the question is: how much effort does it need, and is "average joe" able to pull it?
You were never at risk from the average joe.
The people who would be stealing your photographs are people who, in some way, work in imaging.
People stealing low-res images to make cards for quick sale, or for some kind of copy.
They won't be average joes, and they won't really be put off by a little css.
That said, though– the most important thing protecting you is just the statistics involved.


I have also always liked that they adapt new technologies quickly...
But I have never liked that things like RSS Feeds, and IPhone specific access pages are being FORCED on my account.... after when I signed up while ago, iphone access did not exist... and I had no option to "opt out" of this feature either.... so it's basically: "look, accept it or leave"... and that is what I don't like... besides the fact that I don't want a dedicated accesss for iphones (I mean, browse the real website with safari.., no problem here...)...

and adrian, it's fair to say, that no one here would want smugmug to shut down the iphone services completely... many just want control over their own account. And if that is not fair, than I don't know what would be.
The problem is that you are asking for a level of granularity that is likely not technically feasible.
You're asking it from people who you pay a pittance.
And you're asking it in order to gratify a wish that is quite understandable emotionally, but pointless logically, and painfully counterproductive with regard to web usability.

Now what am I ignorant of again?

dgentile
Nov-22-2008, 01:53 PM
Just one thing as a foreword: labelling me and others "idiots", even in between lines, isn't going to get you very far.

To put it very short: My Photos, My decision.


and to elaborate the issue a little bit more deeply:

I may not fully understand how the internet works, despite the fact that I actually had about 10 years of experience as a network engineer, programmer & system administrator... ok, I admit, it has been a while since I did work in that field... but I believe to have at least undestood the glimpse of the whole thing.
If you're hinting on "social networking", than I have to give in, and say that I truly don't understand all the mechanics behind it, as I personally was never to keen on having 1000 "friends", online relationships, "myspace" pages, internet profiles, chats,... I occasionally use forums when it suits my needs... and I write a good amount of e-mails.
I do have a corporate website to promote my own business, and I do have a photo-website, which serves me for three purposes: Hosting my business related photography, in a manner which makes it easy for me to upload new photos, access them in various sizes for various purposes and to have a good photo-interface for my customers... the third reason being to share my other photographic endavours with those who want to get a look at them.

from a plain technical point of view, I believe to be fully capable of judging how possible or impossible it would be to make my "wish" work.
and honestly - whilst it would take some effort - the effort would be minimal in comparison to the implementation of the rest of the system here... having a filter installed, database related, enabling a user to switch some feature like iphone access on or off, isn't the most difficult task smugmug has been faced with, let me assure you of this.
it's perfectly possible to get this done, in a multitude of ways.

and AGAIN - if told you, that I am quite aware that my photos can be stolen if someone really wants to - that is not my main concern.
What disturbs me mostly is the fact, that I no longer can control the WAY things are being viewed (read my art gallery allegory again in my previous point, it should "draw the picture nicely")...
and that is, as a paying customer, quite frustrating, after having spent so much work - with the good help of others here - to get it done the way I want to.


and to go back to the "landlord and fifty feet tall walls issue"...
that there are regulations it is perfectly true, well unless of course my property would be at a very remote location... but again, read the "art-gallery" thing in my previous text again... it really does say what I think is relevant for this matter.

I believe that another issue is that you don't understand that I don't want to block you with your precious new toy from browsing my photo website... I just don't want to let you inside through the backdoor of my gallery "disrupting" all the sorting, categorization and presentation I have ivested time to create (for good reason, as I wanted to separate business from pleasure stuff...)
My wish not to have this backdoor, wide open, is for sure not counterproductive ... it's not that I don't want others to have it on their own website - I basically just want the key to open or close it at my own preference,... if you believe it to be good to have it open, go ahead and have it your way WITH YOUR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS...
But honestly I must wonder at where your attitude comes from, that you truly believe to know-it-all for others too...

While I am certainly ignorant of the details of your needs (just as you are ignorant of mine), I think that the issue here is that I am disparaging your wishes.



I accept your quibble, but it doesn't actually change my point.

There comes a point where, in your desire for privacy, one can just ruin other people's experience and make oneself look like an idiot.

So while the desire not to have people peek inside your front lawn is understandable, 50 feet walls in residential areas are illegal in many countries; neighborhood associations often limit them; and if you're renting a house, landlords generally won't accomodate you in building them.

I understand the desire, I just don't agree that the request is sensible or reasonable.




The wish is understandable, but the simple fact is this:
That's not the way that the web works. You don't ever really have that level of control. You never did.
That's what I was alluding to when I spoke of unrealistic expectations.
Different web browsers render things differently. Most have options to disregard all the little javascript tricks that photographers delude themselves into viewing as protection.
Trying to change this in the name of artistic consistency or security locks out a significant proportion of your viewership without ever really giving you the consistency or the security you wanted.



You were never at risk from the average joe.
The people who would be stealing your photographs are people who, in some way, work in imaging.
People stealing low-res images to make cards for quick sale, or for some kind of copy.
They won't be average joes, and they won't really be put off by a little css.
That said, though– the most important thing protecting you is just the statistics involved.



The problem is that you are asking for a level of granularity that is likely not technically feasible, in order to gratify a wish that is, ultimately, understandable emotionally, but pointless logically, and painfully counterproductive with regard to web usability.

Now what am I ignorant of again?

guttaperk
Nov-22-2008, 01:58 PM
Dude, the only thing I'm going to say to you right now is this:

I did not call you an idiot;
I do not see you as an idiot;
I did not mean for you to feel as if I called you an idiot;

I regret any ill feelings caused by my using the word;

but really, you're going to have to be a little more generous and flexible in your interpretation for conversation to be either pleasant or productive.

wishing you all the best,

adrian.

dgentile
Nov-22-2008, 02:05 PM
Adrian,
I am prefectly willing and capable to have a great degree of flexibility regarding this conversation...

But I thought I had pointed out why it was my wish to have an OPTION to decide whether I would like to have an iphone page, feeds, and other such things, or not...

but your course of action was to label my wishes counter-productive, call me ignorant, use the land-lord story to tell me that building a high wall around my own property would make me look like an idiot, etc.
all in all, your wording did not lead me to believe that your own stance on the issue was a display of flexibility either.

I still don't understand, why you act like if I threatened you, only by wishing for smugmug not to cut me out of the decision by what means I would like to share my photos.

you maybe have to undestand, that when I signed up, it was a bit different, and I chose smugmug for their ease of use, for their customizability (that was my major keypoint) and for their personal support.

Dude, the only thing I'm going to say to you right now is this:

I did not call you an idiot;
I do not see you as an idiot;
I did not mean for you to feel as if I called you an idiot;

I regret any ill feelings caused by my using the word;

but really, you're going to have to be a little more generous and flexible in your interpretation for conversation to be either pleasant or productive.

wishing you all the best,

adrian.

guttaperk
Nov-22-2008, 02:06 PM
If that's all that you've gotten from my posts, it's no wonder things have gone as they have.

dgentile
Nov-22-2008, 02:13 PM
If that's all that you've gotten from my posts, it's no wonder things have gone as they have.
Then please enlighten me on what I should instead have gotten from your post?

it's not that I fail to see your effort of trying to convince me that the iphone website isn't the devils offspring... but I never labelled it as such.
It's not that you did not try to tell me that I don't have to be afraid of average joe stealing my photos, fine - I told you before it's not that I'm afraid of someone stealing my stuff... even though I don't mind making it a bit harder for anyone who might try... the longer it takes, and the more effort it needs the less "interesting" it usually becomes.
It's also not the fact that I'm terrified by real "digital burglars" quite well capable of getting my photos... I don't make a living of my photography, or at least not a substantial...

It's mostly, as I mentioned numerous times before, the fact, that I would like the freedom of choice of HOW I present my stuff... I have good reasons to do so, at least I believe... and only because I don't want it to be presented in the way smugmug enabled iphone browsing and by RSS feeds doesn't make a backwards digital hillbilly, I belive.

what of this is not clear, and why you first feel the need to highlight what I already told, and then not even go into detail and tell my why I'm so wrong, I don't get either.

guttaperk
Nov-22-2008, 04:22 PM
I'm not here to try to convince you. Just stating my opinion. The fact that I don't hold your opinion in high regard is not an attack or an insult. I disagree with you, and have given my reasons why.

You choose to ignore much of what I was saying, and focus on perceived attack. That focus is your choice. I've clarified my intent and purpose.

I did actually acknowledge that I considered your desire understandable– if you recall, or if you were even reading. I still do feel that I understand where you are coming from In some ways I feel the same way that you do. I just think that you're wrong in the substantive position that you have taken.

If you are interested in understanding a position other than yours, my earlier posts, with explanation, remain. I suspect (though I hope I'm wrong!) that you are more interested in winning an online debate in the hope of furthering your agenda.

I don't agree with that either. I don't think that "winning" over me will help you.

cheers

adrian.

mbellot
Nov-22-2008, 07:57 PM
There comes a point where, in your desire for privacy, one can just ruin other people's experience and make oneself look like an idiot.
Sorry, but you obviously misunderstand. What dgentile, myself and others are asking for is the ability to turn it off ONLY for our particular SM account.

You like it? Go for it.

But why should those who don't like it be forced to put up with it?

Would you buy a car with an advanced theft deterrent system on all the doors, but anyone crawling in through the trunk can drive away unimpeded?

The problem is that you are asking for a level of granularity that is likely not technically feasible.

Horsesh*t!

The /iphone url is parsed very early in the process. A simple site wide option (on/off) in the control panel to process or skip that step in the parsing would be trivial. (I write s/w and design hardware for a living, I don't use that term lightly).

You're asking it from people who you pay a pittance.
$150/year is hardly a pittance. YMMV

And you're asking it in order to gratify a wish that is quite understandable emotionally, but pointless logically, and painfully counterproductive with regard to web usability.
Painfully counterproductive with regard to web usability?

To whom? The handful of iPhone users such as yourself who feel the net now revolves around your new toy? :rolleyes

Now what am I ignorant of again?
Rhetorical question no doubt.

jfriend
Nov-22-2008, 08:25 PM
Gentlemen, I think we need to make sure this discussion stays focused on Smugmug features/questions/suggestions rather than getting personal. And, in the vein of not getting personal, we must all make room for the fact that different people have different needs and desires so they may want a different set of options.

I'm one who has argued that those using CSS to hide things instead of using unlisted galleries should just hide things in the supported way and they won't show up in the iPhone interface. So, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that were hiding categories with CSS who are now bummed they show up on the iPhone interface. There are better ways to hide things that are supported in the iPhone interface so if those can be used to do what you're trying to do, then you should use the supported ways.

And, we should all know by now that right-click protection is pretty worthless for any sense of real image security (it takes me literally four seconds to bypass), so if you really want to protect your images, use nicely done custom watermarks which do work on the iPhone and nobody knows how to get around. Again, a better image security solution does exist that is supported on the iPhone.

But, for someone who really wants to control the look and feel of their site and decide which options are visible to their users, there is no work-around and it should be their choice (particularly for pro accounts) whether their images are exposed through the non-customizable, non-controllable iPhone interface or not. After all, Smugmug does market that you can completely customize the look and feel of your site and the iPhone interface is not respecting that. The exact words they use on their main sales/marketing page (http://www.smugmug.com/price/) are "Completely customize". This promise is falling short with the iPhone interface.

Though I've argued against it many times before, I now support the idea of a per-account setting that can disable the /iphone access or redirect it to the regular web access point. For those who like the /iphone interface, it seems like it's no big deal if some other customers want to turn it off. Therefore, I don't see any negative impact on you if some other user turns it off for their account and it clearly would retain the promise of "completely customize" access to your photos by allowing accounts holders who don't want that non-customized view to disable it. In other words, I don't see any downside to offering the control to those who want it.

rich56k
Nov-22-2008, 10:10 PM
:agree :agree :agree :agree :agree

Very well stated mbellot & John...

As a long time pro-acct CUSTOMER I feel it needs to be corrected to offer us the option - rather than force it down our throats

-rich56k

guttaperk
Nov-23-2008, 02:12 AM
Hi, Jfriend,


Gentlemen, I think we need to make sure this discussion stays focused on Smugmug features/questions/suggestions rather than getting personal. And, in the vein of not getting personal, we must all make room for the fact that different people have different needs and desires so they may want a different set of options.

I'm one who has argued that those using CSS to hide things instead of using unlisted galleries should just hide things in the supported way and they won't show up in the iPhone interface. So, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that were hiding categories with CSS who are now bummed they show up on the iPhone interface. There are better ways to hide things that are supported in the iPhone interface so if those can be used to do what you're trying to do, then you should use the supported ways.

And, we should all know by now that right-click protection is pretty worthless for any sense of real image security (it takes me literally four seconds to bypass), so if you really want to protect your images, use nicely done custom watermarks which do work on the iPhone and nobody knows how to get around. Again, a better image security solution does exist that is supported on the iPhone.
Complete agreement.

But, for someone who really wants to control the look and feel of their site and decide which options are visible to their users, there is no work-around and it should be their choice (particularly for pro accounts) whether their images are exposed through the non-customizable, non-controllable iPhone interface or not. After all, Smugmug does market that you can completely customize the look and feel of your site and the iPhone interface is not respecting that. The exact words they use on their main sales/marketing page (http://www.smugmug.com/price/) are "Completely customize". This promise is falling short with the iPhone interface.
I actually agree that that marketing promise is not being kept– which is definitely a problem. As I said before, I do think that the idea of complete artistic control on the web was always a questionable promise.

But I don't agree with the "should's". They imply a simple moral imperative that doesn't exist here.

There comes a point where artistic desire for control, within a business agreement, clashes with limits of practicality, cost-effectiveness, and community standards.

I don't see the anti- /iphone folk in this thread considering any of those things.

I can (and do) sympathise, but I don't have to agree.

And my disagreement doesn't actually mean that I don't understand you. I do understand– as a technology enthusiast, I've seen these discussions before, and as an artist, I also am driven to greater creative control.

I've tried to reflect that understanding in my responses, by repeatedly acknowledging that the desire for artistic control is one that I understand and share.

Thanks for bringing the conversation back to an appropriate level.

cheers

adrian.

dgentile
Nov-23-2008, 02:17 AM
Adrian,

winning over you? misunderstanding? perceived attack?
hell, I don't know where you get these ideas from...

I still don't understand why you act like someone's threatening you and your precious iphone access...

I can't make it any more simple: the only thing I want, is the control OVER MY OWN DATA... not yours.
So if you like the /iphone thing, fine... I don't care.
but why you act up like this, if others feel the need to have their OWN DATA presented in a controlled way, I truly fail to understand...

but alas, as long as you try to quibble around the issue like you do, I truly don't feel the need to elaborate it any further, as I believe to have made my point clear.

and one last thing: do you see, there are others here, paying smugmug customers like myself, who want the ability to control this thing...
and truly 150$/year isn't what I would define as a pittance either.

Andy
Nov-23-2008, 03:40 AM
Hi folks, thanks for the new comments. Just wanted to say that they're being read and understood.

dgentile
Nov-23-2008, 04:55 AM
Hi folks, thanks for the new comments. Just wanted to say that they're being read and understood.

Andy,

thank you for your feedback here... it's good to know that the concerns are being understood by smugmug's team!

is there any chance you could give us a little bit more "insight" on what the plan looks like to solve the "problem" ??

thanks

Daniel

mbellot
Nov-23-2008, 09:01 PM
There are better ways to hide things that are supported in the iPhone interface so if those can be used to do what you're trying to do, then you should use the supported ways.
I wouldn't call them "better". Different. (Possibly) more secure. Not always better.

Unlisted galleries break navigation, pretty much by design.

For people who need to hide the occasional gallery thats probably OK, but I often need to hide from general public view 30+ galleries for an event. Broken navigation in this case just plain stinks.

Hiding the category/subcategory via CSS provides "just enough" home page privacy without sacrificing navigation.

In other words, I don't see any downside to offering the control to those who want it.
Bingo.

My site, my choice. I don't want it shut down for everyone, I just want to control how MY images are put out there.


Andy: I sure hope this is actually being worked on and not just "read and understood" with no intention of changing the status quo.

dgentile
Nov-23-2008, 11:16 PM
Andy,

I have a small request for future "features" such as RSS, iphone pages, and what may come in the way of "social networking"...

Whilst there are sure to be many who will appreciate these features, there will also be a large group of customers who quite possibly would love the control to switch a feature on or off for their own service.

I mean we already have a lot of "private" features with smugmug... I can hide galleries, I can protect them, I can have them unlisted, I can show them on smugmug, etc. etc...
and all of these at the discretion of the owner of the account... for each dedicated gallery.

I hope that with coming features this will be the same.... I know it's more work, an I know that for some it might be frustrating to see that some customers don't "appreciate" new stuff like the iphone page... but after all, giving more control to your customers will result in happier customers, and a happy customer is a good one ;)

Thus please, I urge you, to include this "on/off" switch for coming new features related to "how something can be accessed" and "how something is being shared".


and on a second thought there's something else:
Please give us some sort of status information on what smugmug decides to do about the iphone pages, soon... thanks...



thank you.

daniel

StevenV
Nov-30-2008, 04:40 PM
There comes a point where artistic desire for control, within a business agreement, clashes with limits of practicality, cost-effectiveness, and community standards.

I don't see the anti- /iphone folk in this thread considering any of those things.

As someone who's in the software development field: I don't see the addition, with the development and testing and maintenance time and expense required, of a new feature that specifically breaks an existing feature to be within the limits of practicality or cost-effectiveness. And when you know it's a feature that is used by a reasonable percentage of your customers, it doesn't fit community standards either. I know that the SM folks love their iPhones and enjoy being part of the iPhone developer community, but this is one place where I think they've decided to turn their back on their customers.

(Yes, Andy, I know that sounds harsh. It's meant to - just as harsh as many of us customers feel we're being treated. I love SM, but this isn't the level of service that I expect from this otherwise fine group of people.)

Baldy
Dec-18-2008, 05:13 PM
Hey everyone,

We're working on two buttons, one for hiding the iPhone interface and one for hiding feeds. We hope they're imminent, but they aren't through testing yet.

I know it sounds hollow but we do love the passion and feedback and wish we had delivered them long ago.

Thanks,
Baldy

mbellot
Dec-18-2008, 08:18 PM
Hey everyone,

We're working on two buttons, one for hiding the iPhone interface and one for hiding feeds. We hope they're imminent, but they aren't through testing yet.

I know it sounds hollow but we do love the passion and feedback and wish we had delivered them long ago.

Thanks,
Baldy
:barb:barb:barb:clap:clap:clap:barb:barb:barb

Thanks for the update!

chrismoore
May-01-2009, 06:22 PM
Hey everyone,

We're working on two buttons, one for hiding the iPhone interface and one for hiding feeds. We hope they're imminent, but they aren't through testing yet.

I know it sounds hollow but we do love the passion and feedback and wish we had delivered them long ago.

Thanks,
Baldy

Hi, I'd like to advertise an iphone link on my site, but I would like to customize which galleries are shown on the iphone interface (aside from making them private). Any update on the buttons you mention?
Thanks

Andy
May-01-2009, 06:40 PM
Hi, I'd like to advertise an iphone link on my site, but I would like to customize which galleries are shown on the iphone interface (aside from making them private). Any update on the buttons you mention?
Thanksno update but I'm gonna see what can be done about these.

mlee
May-01-2009, 08:48 PM
no update but I'm gonna see what can be done about these.

+1 for customizing or disabling the iphone backdoor.

Mike

timcallow
Jul-20-2009, 10:41 AM
I have just become aware from a friend of mine that he can right click or save any photo on his mobile phone from my site, which I don't really have a problem with. They are low res and I agree that it can only bring light to my work. Except that, my watermark does not show up. He has tried several different photos from different galleries, and all without a watermark. The watermark shows up on the PC smugmug site, but not on a save from the mobile site. I read through this long thread, but have not seen any answer for this. Can someone help?

Tim

bendruckerphoto
Aug-16-2009, 06:42 AM
Any updates on this?

Andy
Aug-16-2009, 06:48 AM
Any updates on this?
Nope, not yet, I'm sorry. But I'll ask again.

timcallow
Aug-16-2009, 09:45 AM
My specific issue was resolved by checking off the adding watermarks to the thumbnails option in the control panel.

fstopper
Aug-17-2009, 01:51 PM
Just wondering if there are any plans to remove the iPhone feature. I am working on setting up my SmugMug Pro account for business use, but I know that many of my potential clients will go to my site for the first time via their iPhone. I would rather them see the small version of the normal site instead of seeing a totally unprofessional looking iPhone version of the site.

My trial period has just ended and I was about to go ahead and subscribe, but honestly I may look into one of the other services just because of this issue. I really like everything else so far with SmugMug so I'm not trying to nitpick, but I really don't want the first impression of me to be the generic iPhone version of the website.

Andy
Aug-17-2009, 04:13 PM
Just wondering if there are any plans to remove the iPhone feature. I am working on setting up my SmugMug Pro account for business use, but I know that many of my potential clients will go to my site for the first time via their iPhone. I would rather them see the small version of the normal site instead of seeing a totally unprofessional looking iPhone version of the site.

My trial period has just ended and I was about to go ahead and subscribe, but honestly I may look into one of the other services just because of this issue. I really like everything else so far with SmugMug so I'm not trying to nitpick, but I really don't want the first impression of me to be the generic iPhone version of the website.
We're looking into it, but it won't be immediate. I've got {JT} on the case.

But let me say, as a pro myself, I think your being short sighted. I don't care how clients see my images, only that they see 'em.

Still, we'll investigate the option of disabling, as Baldy said we would.

Thanks!

DrDavid
Aug-17-2009, 08:15 PM
But let me say, as a pro myself, I think your being short sighted. I don't care how clients see my images, only that they see 'em.
+1 I agree with Andy. Who cares HOW they see the photos; as long as they CAN. Besides, there's lots of other ways to view your photos... RSS feeds, all sorts of iPhone apps, etc.. If I want to, I can even look at your galleries via. "www.smugmug.com" which effectively disables all your customization too. Bottom line is that if I want to view your photos without your customization, I'll do it....

But, *I* am the one with the money to spend, and are you really going to tell me that my money isn't good if I don't look at the photos in the exactly right way?

David

jfriend
Aug-17-2009, 08:29 PM
+1 I agree with Andy. Who cares HOW they see the photos; as long as they CAN. Besides, there's lots of other ways to view your photos... RSS feeds, all sorts of iPhone apps, etc.. If I want to, I can even look at your galleries via. "www.smugmug.com" which effectively disables all your customization too. Bottom line is that if I want to view your photos without your customization, I'll do it....

But, *I* am the one with the money to spend, and are you really going to tell me that my money isn't good if I don't look at the photos in the exactly right way?

David Can people buy photos through the iPhone interface (that's a rhetorical question - the answer is NO)? If you're a pro looking to sell, wouldn't you want your customers to see your photos in an interface that they can purchase from or at least see how to purchase photos?

The issue isn't that there are other ways for them to see your photos. The issue is that when they go to your site on an iphone, the viewer is shown the photos in one particular way and it's not what the site owner wants.

DrDavid
Aug-17-2009, 11:37 PM
Can people buy photos through the iPhone interface (that's a rhetorical question - the answer is NO)? If you're a pro looking to sell, wouldn't you want your customers to see your photos in an interface that they can purchase from or at least see how to purchase photos?

The issue isn't that there are other ways for them to see your photos. The issue is that when they go to your site on an iphone, the viewer is shown the photos in one particular way and it's not what the site owner wants.
You can't really buy photos via. an iphone from the normal interface either. So, not really a big deal...

But, while the iPhone interface is a part of SmugMug, it's not FORCED on the iPhone user. They have to click it to see it. So, if I'm an iPhone user, I have to go out of my way to see it. This is a non-issue in my opinion.

David

bendruckerphoto
Aug-18-2009, 03:56 AM
+1 I agree with Andy. Who cares HOW they see the photos; as long as they CAN.

I would agree that seeing my photos is better than not at all, but that's still no excuse for not permitting users to disable the iPhone interface. I use my SmugMug site as a proof gallery and don't link to it from anywhere. If a client happens to go there, I don't want them to see the SM iPhone interface. I want them to see mine.

shimage
Sep-03-2009, 02:43 PM
So maybe this was covered already--I didn't read every post in this thread--but my understanding of CSS is that the whole point is that it can be overridden at will to make pages more accessible (that would be the "cascading" bit). The problem with html4 was that, if someone painstakingly crafted a webpage they intended to be viewed "just so", and this made it impossible for you to view, you couldn't do anything about it. CSS was supposed to fix this by allowing you, the viewer, to have some control over how you viewed things.

To that end, turning off CSS in Firefox is but a click-drag-release away (Opera goes a step further by allowing you to specify your own CSS to be used instead). Anyone visiting the '/iphone/' interface on a normal browser is clearly not interested in your CSS, so what's supposed to keep them from just turning it off period? I just don't understand it. To suddenly insist that CSS need be followed to the T or the page shouldn't even be served seems like 1) a step backwards to me, and 2) impossible to enforce. Any solution that smugmug comes up with will be as useless as the TSA, and will only serve as a monument to their willingness to do what their customers ask of them, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

jfriend
Sep-03-2009, 06:08 PM
So maybe this was covered already--I didn't read every post in this thread--but my understanding of CSS is that the whole point is that it can be overridden at will to make pages more accessible (that would be the "cascading" bit). The problem with html4 was that, if someone painstakingly crafted a webpage they intended to be viewed "just so", and this made it impossible for you to view, you couldn't do anything about it. CSS was supposed to fix this by allowing you, the viewer, to have some control over how you viewed things.

To that end, turning off CSS in Firefox is but a click-drag-release away (Opera goes a step further by allowing you to specify your own CSS to be used instead). Anyone visiting the '/iphone/' interface on a normal browser is clearly not interested in your CSS, so what's supposed to keep them from just turning it off period? I just don't understand it. To suddenly insist that CSS need be followed to the T or the page shouldn't even be served seems like 1) a step backwards to me, and 2) impossible to enforce. Any solution that smugmug comes up with will be as useless as the TSA, and will only serve as a monument to their willingness to do what their customers ask of them, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. There are a couple issues at play here which I think are legitimate issues.

First, if you are a pro who has painstakingly customized and branded your site, you have every right to expect that branding to be preserved in all normal views of your site. It's not that people couldn't bypass it by doing weird things to the CSS (they can), it's just that all normal interfaces should be under their control and respect their desire to present their customized and branded site. The /iphone interface does not do that. It has no customer branding and has no ability to be customized and presents only a generic interface. As such, I understand why some pros would legitimately object.

Second, if you use various forms of image protection such as right-click protection, you expect them to be implemented across the different Smugmug interfaces including the iphone interface (which it is not).

shimage
Sep-04-2009, 10:33 AM
Fair enough, though I would not consider the "/iphone" interface "normal". It's for devices with limited display capability; stripping the CSS in that context is exactly for what CSS was designed. Likewise, disabling right-clicks is a javascript setting which is not only annoying and easily circumvented (all browsers let you disable right-click-disabling, by the way), but not possible on devices that do not do javascript. I think their legitimate concerns are for a type of (ab)user that does not exist. However, if it makes them feel safer, then fine. Give it to them.

To the Smugmug team: I'm sure you have thought of these things already, but I just thought I would throw them out there; if they've already been mentioned, then consider it a vote in their favor. I think the proper solution to the problem is to either ease the creation of share groups. I can think of two ways to do it of the top of my head (neither of which may be easy/possible to implement, but how would I know without asking?): 1) make share groups something you can create/add-to in gallery presets, or 2) allow categories to be "unlisted", so that neither the category, nor any of the internal galleries are linked-to externally, but if you have the url to the category, you can get all the galleries within. The latter is a bit weak without adding keys to (unlisted) categories, but no worse, I think, than the other solutions being proposed (i.e., removing the '/iphone' interface).

jfriend
Sep-04-2009, 10:45 AM
Fair enough, though I would not consider the "/iphone" interface "normal". It's for devices with limited display capability; stripping the CSS in that context is exactly for what CSS was designed. Likewise, disabling right-clicks is a javascript setting which is not only annoying and easily circumvented (all browsers let you disable right-click-disabling, by the way), but not possible on devices that do not do javascript (e.g., iPhones, Blackberries, etc). I think their legitimate concerns are for a type of (ab)user that does not exist. However, if it makes them feel safer, then fine. Give it to them.

To the Smugmug team: I'm sure you have thought of these things already, but I just thought I would throw them out there; if they've already been mentioned, then consider it a vote in their favor. I think the proper solution to the problem is to either ease the creation of share groups. I can think of two ways to do it of the top of my head (neither of which may be easy/possible to implement, but how would I know without asking?): 1) make share groups something you can create/add-to in gallery presets, or 2) allow categories to be "unlisted", so that neither the category, nor any of the internal galleries are linked-to externally, but if you have the url to the category, you can get all the galleries within. The latter is a bit weak without adding keys to (unlisted) categories, but no worse, I think, than the other solutions being proposed (i.e., removing the '/iphone' interface). Just one correction. The right-click protection is not accomplished via javascript. There is a notification that pops up with javascript, but one can disable javascript and the right-click protection still works.

Unlisted categories would a much loved feature, not only for the iphone interface, but would keep regular users from having to install javascript hacks to accomplish a simple task of hiding a category.

bendruckerphoto
Sep-04-2009, 11:25 AM
Also, the iPhone does support javascript completely.

shimage
Sep-04-2009, 03:04 PM
Just one correction. The right-click protection is not accomplished via javascript. There is a notification that pops up with javascript, but one can disable javascript and the right-click protection still works.
Sorry about that. I realize now that this is more sophisticated than the javascript nonsense. I can still pull the data from the browser cache or simply use a gallery downloader (and there are other, even simpler ways around it, that don't even involve the print-to-screen button), but yes, you are right, right-clicking gives me spacer.gif instead of the picture.

Since this is a feature that is advertised by Smugmug, I can understand why people are so upset, but realistically, there isn't anything reasonable that can be done about it. Removing the "/iphone" interface is security through obscurity, and it assumes that abusers are a fundamentally stupid and lazy lot (and yet, they are clever enough to use the "/iphone" url ... ). Still, as I said, if that is what people want, then I guess it would behoove Smugmug to provide it.

Unlisted categories would a much loved feature, not only for the iphone interface, but would keep regular users from having to install javascript hacks to accomplish a simple task of hiding a category.
When I went looking for galleries using right-click protection I noticed you suggested this over a year ago. I wonder how hard it would be to actually implement ...

Also, the iPhone does support javascript completely.
I was going to check that before posting, then forgot. I thought my wife's ipod Touch couldn't do javascript navigation, but I think I confused that with flash navigation. Not that either should be tolerated ...

mbellot
Sep-04-2009, 06:20 PM
When I went looking for galleries using right-click protection I noticed you suggested this over a year ago. I wonder how hard it would be to actually implement ...
Compared to a simple (site wide) /iphone disable its probably a fair bit of development.

As I have already said, its plainly obvious that SM is parsing the url and switching interfaces very early in the lookup.

Setting an option to enable/disable that step in the parsing should be extremely straightforward.



FWIW - almost a year ago Baldy said "We hope they're imminent, but they aren't through testing yet." (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=992118&postcount=166)

Given that the post was made on December 18th, 2008 I would guess there is no real serious commitment to doing this...

But that was fairly obvious from Andy's repeated comments about that many Pros "button up' (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=790190&postcount=41) too much.

From all evidence SM does not intend to do anything about this issue.

My original plea (from March 2008) still stands.

Offer all the gizmos, I'm sure many users like them. Hell, turn them on by default. But give ME the ability to turn them off if thats my wish.

Andy
Sep-04-2009, 06:28 PM
FWIW - almost a year ago Baldy said "We hope they're imminent, but they aren't through testing yet." (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=992118&postcount=166)

Given that the post was made on December 18th, 2008 I would guess there is no real serious commitment to doing this...
Au contraire, Baldy, {JT} and I are and have been kicking this around. It's not trivial but doable - there are just so many other things ahead of it. It's still on {JT}'s list to do, and Baldy stands by his post (which he made after talking to Onethumb). It's really just a case of spirit willing, flesh weak and so many other things being demanded of us by our customers.

But that was fairly obvious from Andy's repeated comments about that many Pros "button up' (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=790190&postcount=41) too much.

Even I am allowed to make personal statements :D "Don't shut out a single visitor or viewer, in my opinion."

mbellot
Sep-05-2009, 11:47 AM
Au contraire, Baldy, {JT} and I are and have been kicking this around. It's not trivial but doable - there are just so many other things ahead of it. It's still on {JT}'s list to do, and Baldy stands by his post (which he made after talking to Onethumb). It's really just a case of spirit willing, flesh weak and so many other things being demanded of us by our customers.

Sorry, but I don't buy that.

There is a special case set up for that one url (mynick.smugmug.com/iphone) that is parsed way ahead of anything else.

I've tried using vanity URLs, categories and albums to "force" users to a location of MY choosing, but none of it works because they never get to my site with that URL, only to the iphone interface. I haven't tried "Nice Names" yet, but I bet that won't work either.

If SM was serious about implementing this it would have been done with Easy Customizer, that would have been the obvious and logical time.

Even I am allowed to make personal statements :D "Don't shut out a single visitor or viewer, in my opinion."
Yes, you are allowed your opinion. The difference is that your opinion actually has real impact on where development resources are directed. We (users) can make suggestions, whine, bitch, complain, etc but we do not get a direct say in how and when things get implemented like you.

As for "not shutting out a single visitor or viewer", that's a fine sentiment. Except some of my customers (schools) don't wish to have students' faces out in the open for casual viewers. Hiding via CSS is "just enough" security for them that the /iphone interface defeats.

Andy
Sep-05-2009, 12:02 PM
Sorry, but I don't buy that.

There is a special case set up for that one url (mynick.smugmug.com/iphone) that is parsed way ahead of anything else.

I've tried using vanity URLs, categories and albums to "force" users to a location of MY choosing, but none of it works because they never get to my site with that URL, only to the iphone interface. I haven't tried "Nice Names" yet, but I bet that won't work either.

If SM was serious about implementing this it would have been done with Easy Customizer, that would have been the obvious and logical time.


Yes, you are allowed your opinion. The difference is that your opinion actually has real impact on where development resources are directed. We (users) can make suggestions, whine, bitch, complain, etc but we do not get a direct say in how and when things get implemented like you.

As for "not shutting out a single visitor or viewer", that's a fine sentiment. Except some of my customers (schools) don't wish to have students' faces out in the open for casual viewers. Hiding via CSS is "just enough" security for them that the /iphone interface defeats.Of course you get a voice. As I said, Jimmy, Baldy and I are kicking this around (my personal feelings about it aside...!)

I expect we'll enable this but I can't say when it'll be done. It's on the list to do, as I've said, and a Baldy's said. But you seem to think' we're not gonna do it :D

Hang in there, our spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

mbellot
Sep-06-2009, 04:54 PM
Hang in there, our spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Meanwhile my pictures are available in a way i never wanted or requested.

:rolleyes

Andy
Sep-06-2009, 05:19 PM
Meanwhile my pictures are available in a way i never wanted or requested.

:rolleyes
Thanks for continuing to tell us how important this is to you, we really appreciate it.

DrDavid
Sep-06-2009, 06:38 PM
The only way to 100% control the way your photos will be viewed: Don't put them online. If it's online, your photos can be viewed in all sorts of odd ways that you didn't intend.

But.. I wonder if there's a CSS element that we could hide to never show the iphone link.. That might actually do it! I'll see if I can make it go away and post the code if I can.

DrDavid
Sep-06-2009, 06:56 PM
Try adding this to your CSS.. Think it should do the trick! :)


#breadCrumbTrail h1.foreground { display: none !important; }


It won't prevent going to /iphone manually, but, it will simply not offer the option to anyone on an iPhone. That's probably good enough for most people.

mbellot
Sep-06-2009, 08:17 PM
Try adding this to your CSS.. Think it should do the trick! :)


#breadCrumbTrail h1.foreground { display: none !important; }

It won't prevent going to /iphone manually, but, it will simply not offer the option to anyone on an iPhone. That's probably good enough for most people.

DrDavid - I appreciate the effort, but checking my site through a normal browser (not logged in) I don't see any option for the iphone (using both IE and FF).

Is it something (a link or button) you can only see when browsing with an iphone browser?

DrDavid
Sep-06-2009, 08:22 PM
DrDavid - I appreciate the effort, but checking my site through a normal browser (not logged in) I don't see any option for the iphone (using both IE and FF).

Is it something (a link or button) you can only see when browsing with an iphone browser?
Yup.. If you're using an iphone, you will see a link to use the iphone interface. Using my code, it will NOT show to those users.

BTW, do you mean that you posted about this issue and you don't even know what iPhone users see when they go to your SmugMug site? O_o

David

BigAl
Sep-07-2009, 02:16 AM
The only way to 100% control the way your photos will be viewed: Don't put them online. If it's online, your photos can be viewed in all sorts of odd ways that you didn't intend.
:D

BTW, do you mean that you posted about this issue and you don't even know what iPhone users see when they go to your SmugMug site? O_o
:D :D :rofl

mbellot
Sep-07-2009, 08:48 PM
Yup.. If you're using an iphone, you will see a link to use the iphone interface. Using my code, it will NOT show to those users.

BTW, do you mean that you posted about this issue and you don't even know what iPhone users see when they go to your SmugMug site? O_o

David
Correct. I had NO IDEA that not only has SmugMug made my photos available on an alternate interface (until this thread was started), but apparently they are advertising this half functional interface by modifying my main web pages. :huh

IMHO the entire interface needs to be optional, but eliminating the advertisement about it on my main page(s) is at least a step in the right direction. I thank you for pointing it out and providing a solution. :thumb

Call me old fashioned, but my cell phone only makes/receives calls. If I'm not in front of a computer chances are its because I don't want to be "connected".

Andy
Sep-08-2009, 03:00 AM
Correct. I had NO IDEA that not only has SmugMug made my photos available on an alternate interface (until this thread was started), but apparently they are advertising this half functional interface by modifying my main web pages. :huh

IMHO the entire interface needs to be optional, but eliminating the advertisement about it on my main page(s) is at least a step in the right direction. I thank you for pointing it out and providing a solution. :thumb

Call me old fashioned, but my cell phone only makes/receives calls. If I'm not in front of a computer chances are its because I don't want to be "connected".
Hi, it's certainly not an advertisement - we don't do ads and never have - it's a convenience for those browsing on iPhones in iPhone Safari. I'm very sorry this feature has upset you so much :( Please, allow us to keep working at it.

Andy
Oct-29-2009, 08:05 PM
Release notes are being written, but we've addressed this feature request :D

Go to your control panel, settings tab. You'll see an option to disable the iphone view complete, as well as ability to disable feeds completely, if you wish.

http://img.skitch.com/20091030-eguad2tjhpbf47rgunh8unff1k.jpg

Thanks for your passionate advocacy, and your patience as well! :bow

mlee
Oct-29-2009, 08:14 PM
Release notes are being written, but we've addressed this feature request :D

Go to your control panel, settings tab. You'll see an option to disable the iphone view complete, as well as ability to disable feeds completely, if you wish.

http://img.skitch.com/20091030-eguad2tjhpbf47rgunh8unff1k.jpg

Thanks for your passionate advocacy, and your patience as well! :bow

Yay!

Thank you!


Mike

mbellot
Oct-29-2009, 08:37 PM
I can't believe my eyes...

Andy, Thank You just doesn't seem to cover it...

:thumb:barb

And for the sorcerers.
:beer

Release notes are being written, but we've addressed this feature request :D

Go to your control panel, settings tab. You'll see an option to disable the iphone view complete, as well as ability to disable feeds completely, if you wish.

http://img.skitch.com/20091030-eguad2tjhpbf47rgunh8unff1k.jpg

Thanks for your passionate advocacy, and your patience as well! :bow

Andy
Oct-30-2009, 03:08 AM
I can't believe my eyes...

Andy, Thank You just doesn't seem to cover it...

:thumb:barb

And for the sorcerers.
:beer
You're welcome! I meant it when I said thanks for your passion and patience. We may not always be as fast as you guys would like (for a zillion different reasons that I'm not gonna go into!) but we do get there, eventually :D

:wave

CWSkopec
Oct-30-2009, 09:39 AM
I'm not sure if this option is working... :scratch

I clicked to disable the iPhone site, then went back to my homepage. When I came back to the control panel the radio button was set to "Enabled." Since there's no "save" button I can't tell if the option is actually being saved and the buttons reset or if it's not saving/working properly.

I'm using IE 8 on a Vista PC at work and I haven't got an iPhone to check. Not sure if any co-workers do, but maybe I'll ask around at lunch time...

Andy
Oct-30-2009, 11:00 AM
I'm not sure if this option is working... :scratch

I clicked to disable the iPhone site,
It's disabled right now.

mbellot
Oct-30-2009, 11:18 AM
I'm not sure if this option is working... :scratch

I clicked to disable the iPhone site, then went back to my homepage. When I came back to the control panel the radio button was set to "Enabled." Since there's no "save" button I can't tell if the option is actually being saved and the buttons reset or if it's not saving/working properly.

I'm using IE 8 on a Vista PC at work and I haven't got an iPhone to check. Not sure if any co-workers do, but maybe I'll ask around at lunch time...

No need to have an iPhone.

In any browser just add /iphone to the end of your SM website url and you'll be re-directed to the iPhone interface.

Or at least you would if the option is enabled. :rofl

CWSkopec
Oct-30-2009, 11:23 AM
It's disabled right now.

Thanks for looking, Andy!

The button appears to be staying on disabled now, so I'm not sure what I was seeing earlier... :scratch

mbellot, thanks for the tip! :thumb

dvaughn
Oct-31-2009, 07:27 AM
I have set the button to disabled and then it resets itself to enabled. I have tried several times and it always goes back to enabled. :dunno Am I doing something wrong?

dvaughn
Nov-01-2009, 09:44 AM
I have set the button to disabled and then it resets itself to enabled. I have tried several times and it always goes back to enabled. :dunno Am I doing something wrong?

One of the Smug Mug Heroes set this and it now appears to be working and staying on disabled. Thanks :clap

swampler
Nov-02-2009, 05:35 AM
I didn't even know there was the iphone option until I saw the option to disable it. Glad it's there as apparently right click protection is bypassed when going the iphone route (not that there aren't other ways around it, but why make it easy?).

What does the "feed" option do? Does it break the copy protection tools too?

dgentile
Nov-02-2009, 06:52 AM
I didn't even know there was the iphone option until I saw the option to disable it. Glad it's there as apparently right click protection is bypassed when going the iphone route (not that there aren't other ways around it, but why make it easy?).

What does the "feed" option do? Does it break the copy protection tools too?

swampler,

Feeds (RSS Feeds for example) are an automated way of for example getting updates from a specified source.
A visitor can subscribe to a feed and his browser will automatically check for updates and notify the user of them....
Actually with feeds many things can be done - such as using them as a datasource for independent slideshows or integration into other formats...

Check out this: http://gallery.dgentile.net/hack/feed.mg?Type=gallery&Data=9848247_dvtDx&format=rss200
(this is my own portfolio btw.)

And yes, feeds also will circumnavigate the right-click protection... BUT ONLY FOR A THUMBNAIL Sized photo ... so that should be absolutely no problem.


I'm very glad SmugMug implemented the options to switch the iPhone Interface and feeds off... although I have chosen only to disable the iPhone interface.

The feeds will link back to my "normal" Website-gallery... and thus quite possibly will help with improving traffic... whilst the iPhone interface basically just destroys my customization with no automated way of linking back to the original website.
Also the iPhone interface does let the user easily download everything (in the maximum offered size I've set)... I am aware that the JS Based Right Click Protection is EASY To break... but it still works for 80% of the visitors.

Daniel

jfriend
Nov-02-2009, 07:09 AM
And yes, feeds also will circumnavigate the right-click protection... BUT ONLY FOR A THUMBNAIL Sized photo ... so that should be absolutely no problem. Actually, this is not true. Feeds have full links to the larger sizes of your photos in them too. It so happens that some apps that display feeds only display the thumbnail, but others display a larger (non-right-click-protected) image. And, the direct link URLs are in the feeds.

Right-click-protection is simply not decent protection from anyone other than a total internet newbie. It can be bypassed in seconds.

JustMeAndre
Nov-10-2009, 03:56 PM
One of the Smug Mug Heroes set this and it now appears to be working and staying on disabled. Thanks :clap

I also just tried it a minute ago, twice actually, and it resets to enable.

Andy
Nov-10-2009, 04:04 PM
I also just tried it a minute ago, twice actually, and it resets to enable.
Yours is set to 'disable' when I checked it...

JustMeAndre
Nov-10-2009, 04:07 PM
Yours is set to 'disable' when I checked it...

Thanks Andy - when I refreshed my browser, it changed, that seems to be the "save" button before it takes effect.
I don't want the feeds on either, having same problem there. Can you check that also please Andy.

JustMeAndre
Nov-10-2009, 04:12 PM
see above

JustMeAndre
Nov-10-2009, 04:13 PM
Andy, I know this is a long shot, but I have strong suspicion that my sales are down due to the fact that a lot of would be customers/users (which by the way are school kids) have had a possible way of either downloading my pics or gotten hold of them somehow which resulted in no orders from them. I have google stats, and can see that a lot of those galleries were viewed many times over and over, but never one sale. Is there anyway possible tofind out which galleries were downloaded from, or some or other geek method of "stealing"?

I know you have biger fish to fry, but thought I'd ask anyways.

Thanks
André

Andy
Nov-10-2009, 04:24 PM
I don't want the feeds on either, h


I think for a pro, this is crazy.
http://blogs.smugmug.com/pros/2008/07/05/repeat-after-me-feeds-are-our-friends/

Andy
Nov-10-2009, 04:26 PM
Andy, I know this is a long shot, but I have strong suspicion that my sales are down due to the fact that a lot of would be customers/users (which by the way are school kids) have had a possible way of either downloading my pics or gotten hold of them somehow which resulted in no orders from them. I have google stats, and can see that a lot of those galleries were viewed many times over and over, but never one sale. Is there anyway possible tofind out which galleries were downloaded from, or some or other geek method of "stealing"?

I know you have biger fish to fry, but thought I'd ask anyways.

Thanks
Andrédo you block originals and the larger sizes? Do you have a watermark?

JustMeAndre
Nov-10-2009, 04:31 PM
do you block originals and the larger sizes? Do you have a watermark?

Yes I have watermarks, and largest size is "large".

JustMeAndre
Nov-10-2009, 04:36 PM
I think for a pro, this is crazy.
http://blogs.smugmug.com/pros/2008/07/05/repeat-after-me-feeds-are-our-friends/

I have not worked with feeds EVER - except when subscribing to Smug feeds recently, which is pretty cool. I guess I want them turned off, as my wife and I are working our behinds flat, and do not see the results we were hoping for, and also, want to any "unknown" method of viewing my pics the way I intend them to be viewed.
I am sure you are going to say " still crazy" right?

In a nutshell.. & without holding you responsible for anything - are there any "security threats" with feeds. If not, then I guess I will start using it. Never too old to learn.

mbellot
Nov-10-2009, 08:37 PM
I think for a pro, this is crazy.
http://blogs.smugmug.com/pros/2008/07/05/repeat-after-me-feeds-are-our-friends/

First, thanks for the option to disable RSS. :thumb

Second, I don't completely disagree with you but because its an all or nothing option I need to disable it.

Maybe v2 could be a gallery level setting whether or not to publish in the feeds instead of one global setting.

steamphotos
Nov-14-2009, 09:22 PM
As others have reported, I too was having difficulty setting the iPhone option to disabled using IE8. I would click disabled, but when I came back to the page the enabled radio button would be checked. After several attempts, I tried it in Firefox and it worked on the first try. Perhaps a compatibility issue with IE8 that needs attention.

docwalker
Nov-16-2009, 03:24 AM
I was able to confirm that this is a bug and I am reporting it to the programmers. :thumb

mbellot
Nov-16-2009, 06:23 AM
I was able to confirm that this is a bug and I am reporting it to the programmers. :thumb

SM or M$?

:rofl

docwalker
Nov-16-2009, 06:27 AM
Actually its ours, I think.

TCS
Jan-08-2010, 10:19 AM
How?
What does "disabled" mean then?
This iphone was on the site for 4h and 20 minutes

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/760184177_z6jED-M.jpg


http://www.smugmug.com/photos/760184229_uKf3V-L.jpg

mbellot
Jan-08-2010, 10:24 AM
How?
What does "disabled" mean then?
This iphone was on the site for 4h and 20 minutes


The option doesn't prevent an iPhone from viewing your site, only from accessing the "backdoor" version (http://yoursite.smugmug.com/iphone) which disables all of your customization.

TCS
Jan-08-2010, 10:43 AM
The option doesn't prevent an iPhone from viewing your site, only from accessing the "backdoor" version (http://yoursite.smugmug.com/iphone) which disables all of your customization.

Ha thanks. I just tried and it shows as if it was seen from a normal computer, still usable.

AFBlue
Jan-09-2010, 12:57 AM
How?
What does "disabled" mean then?
This iphone was on the site for 4h and 20 minutes

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/760184177_z6jED-M.jpg


http://www.smugmug.com/photos/760184229_uKf3V-L.jpg

I was interested to see that this particular visitor from the UK spent quite a bit of time yesterday on your site. The same iphone user spent over an hour yesterday checking everything on my site (again). Don't know what he is up to, but I've been uneasy about his motives and seeing that you (and probably many others) are having the same level of visitation (probing?) does not make me feel any better.
Any informed speculation about this UK user's intentions?

jfriend
Jan-09-2010, 06:15 AM
I was interested to see that this particular visitor from the UK spent quite a bit of time yesterday on your site. The same iphone user spent over an hour yesterday checking everything on my site (again). Don't know what he is up to, but I've been uneasy about his motives and seeing that you (and probably many others) are having the same level of visitation (probing?) does not make me feel any better.
Any informed speculation about this UK user's intentions? When you have public galleries, why are you "uneasy" about having someone view them? It sounds like maybe you don't want your galleries to be public.

TCS
Jan-09-2010, 07:31 AM
I was interested to see that this particular visitor from the UK spent quite a bit of time yesterday on your site. The same iphone user spent over an hour yesterday checking everything on my site (again). Don't know what he is up to, but I've been uneasy about his motives and seeing that you (and probably many others) are having the same level of visitation (probing?) does not make me feel any better.
Any informed speculation about this UK user's intentions?

I think it was the same one (same location, I would have to find the file to be sure) that made me disable iphones as he was going through every single galleries that did not have a password, unlisted and all. It is not the first time. That was why I googled and found the old thread showing the bug.

Pupator
Jan-15-2010, 12:02 PM
I think it was the same one (same location, I would have to find the file to be sure) that made me disable iphones as he was going through every single galleries that did not have a password, unlisted and all. It is not the first time. That was why I googled and found the old thread showing the bug.

You cannot prevent iPhones from visiting your regular site - at that point it's just an internet browser (mobile safari) and to exclude one browser is ridiculous. What you are preventing is iPhone users from seeing a special "iPhone version" of your site that has none of your customization, including customization intended to hide certain galleries from most visitors.