jfriend- Don probably just explained it poorly. We definitely plan to let you opt-in to the new style when you are ready. This will allow you to have two sets of customization, one for the old style that is still active. One for the new style that is only used when opted in. You will be able to play with this to your hearts content, and then fully opt your site in when you are ready.
Obviously for that to work, we have to finalize the customization specs. I suppose it is possible we are ready to roll out the gallery style to non-customized sites before we have customization really locked in. That isn't our intention though. We are still a few months away from this most likely, and speculating on stuff we haven't actually built yet. But our intention is to absolutely let you switch to the new style the very second you are ready. Hopefully right at the same time all the non-customized people get it.
I still find it odd and slightly alarming that you're only saying: "hopefully right at the same time as all the non-customized people get it." I think you understand the issue, but you haven't yet calmed the concern.
Using gallery descriptions for purposes not intended creates a lot of technology problems, and functionality problems. It breaks feeds, searching, etc. We want descriptions to be descriptions.
So what are we planning to do about the problem? Well the no-brainer solution to a lot of the problems (including the link you included) is to actually allow real HTML pages. Instead of jamming all this stuff in a field not intended for it, we will build pages to do this exact sort of thing. Seems like a better solution, no?
Better for newly created content that isn't really part of an actual gallery page, yes. The conversion of that site I linked would be an absolute nightmare. I literally think it would take hundreds of hours to redesign that entire site using some new HTML page mechanism. He has a lot of pages using a lot of custom HTML.
But there are use cases here in this thread, and others we haven't seen yet, where people want something on an actual gallery page. In those cases, we are hoping/planning to allow sandboxed "widgets" on the gallery page. Nothing is finalized here (or else you would be playing with it), but our intentions for this would be allowing you to do all sorts of custom stuff on your gallery pages. Just not in the description.
Again, our intentions and goals are MORE customization. By building it properly, we can do far more powerful things in the future. If descriptions are just used for descriptions, we can improve the description feature without breaking youtube embeds. Likewise for the widgets you will be able to build on your page. By separating their functionality, everything can be far more robust.
Explaining the restrictions you're going to be adding and NOT explaining new functionality you will be offering as a replacement is a recipe for alarmed customers. Yes, real HTML pages would be a better long term solution for SOME uses of the gallery description field (like bio pages, about pages, services pages, etc...). It would help a LOT if you disclose more about what you are offering to replace the HTML in the description field. Why doesn't someone make a post about what you'll be doing there so people using the gallery description purely as a means of doing plain HTML pages will at least see there is a light at the end of the tunnel?
But, HTML pages is not a replacement for many of the existing uses of HTML in the gallery description. Are you just telling those people that they're just screwed? What is the message to people who have valuable HTML in the gallery description today and it's a meaningful header on the gallery itself. And, you haven't said anything about what you're going to do for the people who have invested hundreds perhaps even thousands of hours into existing custom HTML pages in gallery descriptions.
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited June 2, 2011
Hey John,
I sent you email but the bottom line is since you're close to us we'd love to have you come in and talk with the gallery design team, so we can show some stuff we can't yet show here, and get some more perspective from you on a couple things.
Everyone, there is some very good feedback in this thread and we really appreciate it.
Oh yeah, I knew I meant to add one more thing to my post above. Timeline!
We are definitely talking months. Quite a few months.
That does help a little bit. I know that smugmug hates to give timelines, but for those of us who are out here earning our living with the tools that you are talking about changing it causes concern.
If I know that I have time to switch my contact form and other html pages in 90 or 120 days, that will make me sleep a little easier at night.
For those of us who don't stay active on dgrin will this information be posted on the smugmug blogs, facebook, or in our control panels with enough time for us to make the changes?
That does help a little bit. I know that smugmug hates to give timelines, but for those of us who are out here earning our living with the tools that you are talking about changing it causes concern.
If I know that I have time to switch my contact form and other html pages in 90 or 120 days, that will make me sleep a little easier at night.
For those of us who don't stay active on dgrin will this information be posted on the smugmug blogs, facebook, or in our control panels with enough time for us to make the changes?
Oh yeah, definitely we will be putting out this info through all available channels. We don't want anyone to miss the message if we can help it.
I"m confused, Andy. The complaints I have about tiny, numerous thumbs are on my screen -- my large screen with great resolution. Like I said, your screenshot-- yes, the one with the "miniscule resolution" (which looks about the same as this one that you just linked, frankly), is great-- it shows 4 rows of 3 thumbs & a nice large preview. This, however, is not the case on my screen at all. I've got tiny little thumbs, and there are too many, in too many rows. (5 rows of 6 thumbs!! --yuck.) It would be helpful to read what people are actually writing!
I"m confused, Andy. The complaints I have about tiny, numerous thumbs are on my screen -- my large screen with great resolution. Like I said, your screenshot-- yes, the one with the "miniscule resolution" (which looks about the same as this one that you just linked, frankly), is great-- it shows 4 rows of 3 thumbs & a nice large preview. This, however, is not the case on my screen at all. I've got tiny little thumbs, and there are too many, in too many rows. (5 rows of 6 thumbs!! --yuck.) It would be helpful to read what people are actually writing!
Without seeing a screen shot form your screen, it's hard to know, but in the older design, this would often happen when there wasn't enough vertical height available for the main image (regardless of how much width there is). This caused SM to pick a smaller main image which means more room for thumbnails. I've never understood when they pick small or large thumbnails to go in that space.
...The complaints I have about tiny, numerous thumbs are on my screen -- my large screen with great resolution. Like I said, your screenshot-- yes, the one with the "miniscule resolution" (which looks about the same as this one that you just linked, frankly), is great-- it shows 4 rows of 3 thumbs & a nice large preview. This, however, is not the case on my screen at all. I've got tiny little thumbs, and there are too many, in too many rows. (5 rows of 6 thumbs!!
There is an old hack that can be used to increase the size of the main image in smugmug style. Take a look at the thread >>> Change SmugMug default settings <<<. In the first post, try the code in the section MORE CONTROL FOR HOW STRETCHY PAGES STRETCH. You may need to experiment with the numbers. I know it still works because I use it on my site.
But of course that won't have any effect on the preview of the new site since our customizations are disabled there.
I will say, upfront, that the new version is crisp and clean! I like that.
A quick question: When SM says that those who have customized sites will be given time and help to migrate over to the new style, is this true for Power users who have customized as well as Pro users?
A quick reaction: I, too, hate, hate, HATE the idea that gallery descriptions would be limited in length to one line.
A +1 to others' comments: I am concerned that only SM and FB folks can leave comments...I have lots of friends and family that have opted out of FB.
WinsomeWorks: If it makes you feel less alone, I also see many long rows of thumbs on my big 30" 2560x1600 monitor (up to eight thumbs in a row) and on my secondary 20" 1280x1024 monitor (up to five thumbs in a row). In addition, none of my photos can be viewed at larger than XL in the new gallery, even in a gallery that originally allowed up to X3L. Maybe that's simply an artifact of this being a test run?
I"m confused, Andy. The complaints I have about tiny, numerous thumbs are on my screen -- my large screen with great resolution. Like I said, your screenshot-- yes, the one with the "miniscule resolution" (which looks about the same as this one that you just linked, frankly), is great-- it shows 4 rows of 3 thumbs & a nice large preview. This, however, is not the case on my screen at all. I've got tiny little thumbs, and there are too many, in too many rows. (5 rows of 6 thumbs!! --yuck.) It would be helpful to read what people are actually writing!
Gallery link? And precisely what is your resolution?
Has anyone else asked about a "lightbox" collection editing tool, a way a client can edit down their images? Does anyone else thing this would be an added tool? I would love to see SmugMug add a feature like this. Does what I'm asking make sense? Cheers Craig
A quick question: When SM says that those who have customized sites will be given time and help to migrate over to the new style, is this true for Power users who have customized as well as Pro users?
Yes! Absolutely! We don't want to leave anyone out in the cold.
Has anyone else asked about a "lightbox" collection editing tool, a way a client can edit down their images? Does anyone else thing this would be an added tool? I would love to see SmugMug add a feature like this. Does what I'm asking make sense? Cheers Craig
Hey Craig,
I totally get what you are asking for, it is just not in the scope of this redesign. It would be a different feature, something worked on separately.
It is related to our events feature, though it would involve expanding on what is there already. I will make sure it gets logged as feedback against that feature for future revisions.
I totally get what you are asking for, it is just not in the scope of this redesign. It would be a different feature, something worked on separately.
It is related to our events feature, though it would involve expanding on what is there already. I will make sure it gets logged as feedback against that feature for future revisions.
Without seeing a screen shot form your screen, it's hard to know, but in the older design, this would often happen when there wasn't enough vertical height available for the main image (regardless of how much width there is). This caused SM to pick a smaller main image which means more room for thumbnails. I've never understood when they pick small or large thumbnails to go in that space.
I've only ever seen SmugMug Style look like this in on my own screen if using Khaki theme. But yeah, I'm talking about in the new design... aargh, just need to put sticky on my computer with instructions for doing a screen-shot. Not sure when I can get to it... 'nother crazy weekend coming up.
aargh, just need to put sticky on my computer with instructions for doing a screen-shot. Not sure when I can get to it... 'nother crazy weekend coming up.
Whatever the benefits are of the proposed changes are lost to me completely by the potential problems caused by them. It makes me wonder whether I should continue to add galleries to my site at all if it's just going to increase the number of future problems.
I have html in many of my gallery descriptions but I don't have a list of which galleries. I'm largely a copy and paste person with a little extra knowledge that is sometimes a help and a hindrance - especially to those trying to help me!
I too absolutely hate the idea of gallery descriptions being limited to one line and requiring a 'more' click.
Many, many people don't want to have to associate with Facebook at all and its obvious why.
Andy -"1024x768, a miniscule resolution these days." - Really, my stats show that 68% of my viewer are using 1280x800 OR LESS! We don't all have deep pockets and the latest monitors, there are other financial priorities, please don't belittle us.
so what to do? It looks like I'll have to constantly monitor this thread when time could be better spent doing other things. Will I be able to cope with the forthcoming changes and the work this will inevitably entail ? I doubt it which leads me to thinking about my renewal which isn't until December, but I've plenty of time to consider whether it just might be easier to move elsewhere.
not promising
First, since it appears this discussion may go on indefinitely, it would be real swell if the folks who are employees of Smugmug and are speaking officially could bother to identify themselves. The fellow Ben seems official, but the catchphrase "I break stuff" under his avatar is neither clear, nor inspiring of confidence.
I echo the concerns of reduced HTML functionality. Baldy, in the first post on this thread, refers to HTML as potentially "page-destroying". Hmmm. I use HTML on every page of my two sites partly to navigate to external sites, partly because Smugmug's breadcrumb is so lousy, and partly otherwise. Never once have I seen, or heard about a page being destroyed because of my HTML. If HTML functionality is to be gone, I'd like to hear a reason other than "it's page-destroying". A bajillion other sites written in HTML seem to work just fine.
Besides functionality, my initial reaction to the cosmetics of the "new" Smugmug was "this is stupid". What I instantly saw was the physical disconnect between a photo and its information (i.e. caption and keywords). There are thumbnails on the left, and the selected photo on the right. Depending on the photo's aspect ratio there may or may not be a whole lot of space under it. Under that space is an absurdly placed secondary navigation and utilities bar. Under that bar is the photo caption. And under the caption are the keywords. The caption and keywords belong to the photo, not the new nav-util bar and should be placed directly below the photo, not interrupted by the new nav-util bar. I don't see the need for that bar at all; why can't the functions there be placed at the top of the page with the other navigation/utility stuff?
That details like separating a photo from its caption escape Smugmug's attention makes me think this is a disaster in the making.
According to this post you will need to switch to the new.
--- Denise
Thanks Denise. That is really unfortunate. I love smug mug, but I just can't justify spending the amount of time needed to customize because you guys want to change things up. I expire in 30 days if I renew will I get a refund if I don't want to opt in?
First, since it appears this discussion may go on indefinitely, it would be real swell if the folks who are employees of Smugmug and are speaking officially could bother to identify themselves. The fellow Ben seems official, but the catchphrase "I break stuff" under his avatar is neither clear, nor inspiring of confidence..
Ben is one of our original employees, and currently manages QA for us, among other things. He's responsible as one of the product managers on our new gallery style.
Alacranera, great feedback - just the sort of thing we really need to hear. Thanks!
these are first impression after only a quick look.
I like the new look, good work.
the download icon looks a lot like the airplay icon, I got excited about showing my slideshows on apple TV.
I like the ability to click to zoom and click to return to normal size on the main photo on the page. I would like to see that same style applied the "see full info" on exif data. I REALLY don't like the full data opening on another page. simply open a larger window that will close when I click it again.
Just my thoughts, and I hope you guys weather the storm this change is brewing OK. I like what I see coming.
I didn't read the entire thread... So, if I'm a "repeat offender", feel free to tell me to not be lazy and read!
Overall, I like the look. Concern-the right-click protection option does NOT work when the individual file is zoomed... While I know that anyone who really wants to download a photo can get around that message, the average user can't/doesn't. Will this be corrected/changed soon?
Also, miss the "owner save" option... I see the download option, but in the "owner save" option, I could save the original file. Am I just missing that in the new version? I've downloaded months worth of files after a hard drive crash and that is a HUGE security blanket for me...
Ok, my resolution is 1680x1050. The display I'm seeing is not what you're seeing at all. (as per your screenshot) I can't tell how large my thumbs are (they look like 100x100 at most), but they're smaller than yours and many more per page. Isn't anyone else seeing 5 rows of 6 thumbs? Or something close to that? My galleries that were 6 pages long are now squished down to 3 pages, because there are so many more thumbs per page. How 'bout here, Andy: http://www.winsomeworks.com/Art/Cascade-of-Colors/Seeing-Red/10028986_cCjx7/394661871_4aTjt same arrangement for me... 5 rows of 6.
Ok, my resolution is 1680x1050. The display I'm seeing is not what you're seeing at all. (as per your screenshot) I can't tell how large my thumbs are (they look like 100x100 at most), but they're smaller than yours and many more per page. Isn't anyone else seeing 5 rows of 6 thumbs? Or something close to that? My galleries that were 6 pages long are now squished down to 3 pages, because there are so many more thumbs per page. How 'bout here, Andy: http://www.winsomeworks.com/Art/Cascade-of-Colors/Seeing-Red/10028986_cCjx7/394661871_4aTjt same arrangement for me... 5 rows of 6.
Andy, for me the appearance of the new gallery style is similar to Winsome's...I also see more thumbnails in each row. My display is 2560x1600. What am I doing wrong?
Wow! That's my first reaction. Loving the new style! Can't wait to see the rest of it as you finish things up.
Now onto a few pieces of feedback that I've noticed so far:
FB like button shows as white box while loading. This is very jarring when quickly cycling through photos
Photo info overlay never refreshes after first shown, even if hidden and re-shown on new photo. Requires a page refresh
The deselection of a thumbnail (when a new thumb is selected) happens in two steps, first switching back to square, then removing highlight. This is a bit jarring if you look at the thumbs closely (which most won't - they're normally looking at the full-size photos, but still concerning)
The highlight of a thumbnail (just from mouse hover, not actual selection) has similar issues, and is quite jarring when quickly mousing over many photos, moving around all the thumbnails
Rounding the corners on thumbnail highlight but showing square otherwise is kind of cool, kind of strange. I'm a bit mixed about it, particularly given that it leads to the above two issues
Can no longer edit gallery description inline (need to go to top-right menu) - will this be coming back?
Same question about caption/keywords. Because of the inherently slow speed of dealing with lightboxes, I'd rather continue to edit inline
Gallery description before clicking "more" doesn't use custom HTML (such as coloring)
Gallery description once more is clicked wraps lines really early (on a 1920px wide monitor, it's about 2/3 of the way, even though there's nothing to the right except the buy button all the way at the right edge)
Can obviously be overriden by custom CSS, but line height on gallery description is 24px - seems like a lot (looks too spaced out) given the font-size of 13px
How do avatars work for comments? From where are they chosen? Is there a profile setting? Gravatars?
Issues with current style and new:
Would be great if photo comments could be viewed easily within the lightbox
Clicking in a blank area of the photo lightbox should close it - I'm pretty sure that's relatively standard in the industry. It's annoying to have to go to the top-right (small click target, no Fitt's law in a browser)
Should indexing keywords (like numbers from photo filenames) appear for logged-out viewers?
And now finally, I actually think the link on the goodies page itself (to this thread) is incorrect (I get a permissions issue); the goodies page should link to this thread for feedback instead?
Comments
Explaining the restrictions you're going to be adding and NOT explaining new functionality you will be offering as a replacement is a recipe for alarmed customers. Yes, real HTML pages would be a better long term solution for SOME uses of the gallery description field (like bio pages, about pages, services pages, etc...). It would help a LOT if you disclose more about what you are offering to replace the HTML in the description field. Why doesn't someone make a post about what you'll be doing there so people using the gallery description purely as a means of doing plain HTML pages will at least see there is a light at the end of the tunnel?
But, HTML pages is not a replacement for many of the existing uses of HTML in the gallery description. Are you just telling those people that they're just screwed? What is the message to people who have valuable HTML in the gallery description today and it's a meaningful header on the gallery itself. And, you haven't said anything about what you're going to do for the people who have invested hundreds perhaps even thousands of hours into existing custom HTML pages in gallery descriptions.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Haha we want your input for sure - keep it coming.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I sent you email but the bottom line is since you're close to us we'd love to have you come in and talk with the gallery design team, so we can show some stuff we can't yet show here, and get some more perspective from you on a couple things.
Everyone, there is some very good feedback in this thread and we really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Baldy
That does help a little bit. I know that smugmug hates to give timelines, but for those of us who are out here earning our living with the tools that you are talking about changing it causes concern.
If I know that I have time to switch my contact form and other html pages in 90 or 120 days, that will make me sleep a little easier at night.
For those of us who don't stay active on dgrin will this information be posted on the smugmug blogs, facebook, or in our control panels with enough time for us to make the changes?
Website
Oh yeah, definitely we will be putting out this info through all available channels. We don't want anyone to miss the message if we can help it.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
But of course that won't have any effect on the preview of the new site since our customizations are disabled there.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
A quick question: When SM says that those who have customized sites will be given time and help to migrate over to the new style, is this true for Power users who have customized as well as Pro users?
A quick reaction: I, too, hate, hate, HATE the idea that gallery descriptions would be limited in length to one line.
A +1 to others' comments: I am concerned that only SM and FB folks can leave comments...I have lots of friends and family that have opted out of FB.
WinsomeWorks: If it makes you feel less alone, I also see many long rows of thumbs on my big 30" 2560x1600 monitor (up to eight thumbs in a row) and on my secondary 20" 1280x1024 monitor (up to five thumbs in a row). In addition, none of my photos can be viewed at larger than XL in the new gallery, even in a gallery that originally allowed up to X3L. Maybe that's simply an artifact of this being a test run?
stueveshots.smugmug.com
Gallery link? And precisely what is your resolution?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Yes! Absolutely! We don't want to leave anyone out in the cold.
Thanks for the rest of the feedback.
Hey Craig,
I totally get what you are asking for, it is just not in the scope of this redesign. It would be a different feature, something worked on separately.
It is related to our events feature, though it would involve expanding on what is there already. I will make sure it gets logged as feedback against that feature for future revisions.
Craig - Make sure you add your votes over on our feedback forum as well...
http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/1295971-add-to-lightbox-needed-
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
http://www.techsmith.com/download/jing/
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
I have html in many of my gallery descriptions but I don't have a list of which galleries. I'm largely a copy and paste person with a little extra knowledge that is sometimes a help and a hindrance - especially to those trying to help me!
I too absolutely hate the idea of gallery descriptions being limited to one line and requiring a 'more' click.
Having Facebook as the only non-smug authentication is really unacceptable. Facebook is a monster with little regard for ethics and openness, who can and will wipe out a business page in a nano second.
See these links for evidence:-
http://blog.sitesell.com/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/facebook-takedown-followup-what-happened-and-what-facebook-needs-to-fix.ars
Smugmug should consider just how much dependency it is placing in FB.
Many, many people don't want to have to associate with Facebook at all and its obvious why.
Andy -"1024x768, a miniscule resolution these days." - Really, my stats show that 68% of my viewer are using 1280x800 OR LESS! We don't all have deep pockets and the latest monitors, there are other financial priorities, please don't belittle us.
so what to do? It looks like I'll have to constantly monitor this thread when time could be better spent doing other things. Will I be able to cope with the forthcoming changes and the work this will inevitably entail ? I doubt it which leads me to thinking about my renewal which isn't until December, but I've plenty of time to consider whether it just might be easier to move elsewhere.
Caroline
www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+
[/URL]
First, since it appears this discussion may go on indefinitely, it would be real swell if the folks who are employees of Smugmug and are speaking officially could bother to identify themselves. The fellow Ben seems official, but the catchphrase "I break stuff" under his avatar is neither clear, nor inspiring of confidence.
I echo the concerns of reduced HTML functionality. Baldy, in the first post on this thread, refers to HTML as potentially "page-destroying". Hmmm. I use HTML on every page of my two sites partly to navigate to external sites, partly because Smugmug's breadcrumb is so lousy, and partly otherwise. Never once have I seen, or heard about a page being destroyed because of my HTML. If HTML functionality is to be gone, I'd like to hear a reason other than "it's page-destroying". A bajillion other sites written in HTML seem to work just fine.
Besides functionality, my initial reaction to the cosmetics of the "new" Smugmug was "this is stupid". What I instantly saw was the physical disconnect between a photo and its information (i.e. caption and keywords). There are thumbnails on the left, and the selected photo on the right. Depending on the photo's aspect ratio there may or may not be a whole lot of space under it. Under that space is an absurdly placed secondary navigation and utilities bar. Under that bar is the photo caption. And under the caption are the keywords. The caption and keywords belong to the photo, not the new nav-util bar and should be placed directly below the photo, not interrupted by the new nav-util bar. I don't see the need for that bar at all; why can't the functions there be placed at the top of the page with the other navigation/utility stuff?
That details like separating a photo from its caption escape Smugmug's attention makes me think this is a disaster in the making.
150px thumbs: https://img.skitch.com/20110603-r642kguix6ewbxxmrcj2k7u9ss.jpg
check your resolution using windows control panel
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Thanks Denise. That is really unfortunate. I love smug mug, but I just can't justify spending the amount of time needed to customize because you guys want to change things up. I expire in 30 days if I renew will I get a refund if I don't want to opt in?
Hudson Valley Wedding Photographer
Hudson Valley Photography Blog
Alacranera, great feedback - just the sort of thing we really need to hear. Thanks!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I like the new look, good work.
the download icon looks a lot like the airplay icon, I got excited about showing my slideshows on apple TV.
I like the ability to click to zoom and click to return to normal size on the main photo on the page. I would like to see that same style applied the "see full info" on exif data. I REALLY don't like the full data opening on another page. simply open a larger window that will close when I click it again.
Just my thoughts, and I hope you guys weather the storm this change is brewing OK. I like what I see coming.
Pete
Overall, I like the look. Concern-the right-click protection option does NOT work when the individual file is zoomed... While I know that anyone who really wants to download a photo can get around that message, the average user can't/doesn't. Will this be corrected/changed soon?
Also, miss the "owner save" option... I see the download option, but in the "owner save" option, I could save the original file. Am I just missing that in the new version? I've downloaded months worth of files after a hard drive crash and that is a HUGE security blanket for me...
Marjohn
Images of Him Photography
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
this is 1650x1080 resolution
https://img.skitch.com/20110603-fbb9cnng1i3g73imfjne8p9rkt.jpg
and here's the new gallery style
https://img.skitch.com/20110603-p2p6wkwdqeb6rdj2ym7nn1wuig.jpg
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Hudson Valley Wedding Photographer
Hudson Valley Photography Blog
Andy, for me the appearance of the new gallery style is similar to Winsome's...I also see more thumbnails in each row. My display is 2560x1600. What am I doing wrong?
This is the screen shot of the gallery as it currently appears on my display: http://screencast.com/t/PZC4Ya3DKtcs
This is the screen shot of the new gallery setup: http://screencast.com/t/vaGXrtPvul
By the way, thanks for mentioning Jing...that's a pretty good bit of capture software...
stueveshots.smugmug.com
Now onto a few pieces of feedback that I've noticed so far:
Issues with current style and new:
And now finally, I actually think the link on the goodies page itself (to this thread) is incorrect (I get a permissions issue); the goodies page should link to this thread for feedback instead?