Help SmugMug make a key decision

[Baldy]

The whispers for a larger image size have turned to a low rumble and we know what that means: the march of monitor pixels will increase the rumble volume, so we're thinking about an XL image size.

(Yes, we know the rumble volume for this is not as loud as for some other things in the queue, but it turns out to be an opportune time given engineering work we're doing on storage right now.)

The rumbles: "I don't get enough L when I click L."

We think XL should be 1024x768. Below the image where you currently see an L link, XL would appear beside it. Just like L, pros will be able to disable XL.

The good:

Two new gallery styles would be born, smugmug L and smugmug XL, which you can preview:

http://onethumb.smugmug.com/gallery/1377106

The dilemma:

smugmug L style would use the Large image size, which can be up to 800 pixels wide or high. For landscape photos, 800 px wide looks great and fits a 1280 monitor beautifully. But at 800 px high, you wouldn't be able to read the caption without scrolling, or any of the other stuff below the photo. That's because monitors are wider than tall.

The solution with the medium size was to make them up to 600 px wide or 450 px tall.

We can think of 2 practical solutions to this dilemma. I'll also mention a third not-so-practical solution so someone else doesn't have to propose it:

1. Resize all Large images to 800 px wide or 600 px tall.

The downside is all portrait-mode images that are now posted on forums and blogs at 800 px high would become 600 px high. 99% of forum posts would just adjust, but a few would look distorted -- like the ones on ADVrider where I posted a L image and specified in HTML in the post that it was 800px high.

2. Only resize the Larges going forward to 800 px wide or 600 px tall.

The downside is legacy Large images would make you scroll when viewed in the new smugmug L style. The upside: they would look as they did when they were originally posted in forums and blogs.

3. This one's messy... When the image is requested externally, give it up in it's original 800 px-high glory; when it's requested inside for a smugmug L gallery, resize on the fly to 600 px.

Which of these is the least of evils? Can you think up a fourth, more elegant solution?

Thanks!
Baldy


EDIT: Nov 30th, 2007: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=77553

[KMCC]

Maybe I've had a long day, but I'm having trouble understanding the need for this change and I don't find much merit in any of the proposed solutions.

[cmason]

#1 seems the best to me. Oh and I welcome this change...Large is too small!

I go on the assumption that most blog posts don't force the image size, as most probably refer directly to the smugmug file. I also suspect that a great many do not post too many Large photos, but that is just my experience. Finally, those who have forced the sizes likely are doing some customization, so would be skilled at correcting if needed.

[cletus]

#1

[jfriend]

Originally Posted by Baldy

Which of these is the least of evils? Can you think up a fourth, more elegant solution?

Yeah for larger images!

#1 seems out. Like it or not, smugmug is an image hosting site and more than a few people use links to smugmug hosted images in web pages (forums and other types of web pages). You just can't unilaterally assume that your users haven't assumed the image was a certain size. Even if it isn't coded to a certain size in the image tag, the whole layout of their HTML page may have assumptions about it's size.

You could leave the -L image as it is and create a new -L2 that followed the different rules, but if someone links to the existing -L image, I think you can't change what they get.

#2 is probably the best compromise. Existing -L images stay the size they are, but Smugmug isn't burdened with forever supporting the existing size on new galleries. You could even give the user a control on a gallery basis or a site-wide basis to "upgrade" their Large images to the new size. If you think you have a reliable way to communicate with your customers, you could even announce that everyone will get converted in 12 months, so if you have any external links that rely on the current -L size, they should get fixed.

#3 seems overly complicated, fraught with some difficulties (it won't always work perfectly) and forever burdens Smugmug with maintaining this legacy support which I think would be bad for all of us to drag on this complexity forever.

So, I'd vote for 2a which is to automatically make newly created galleries to the new size of Large, give the user the opportunity to "upgrade" their existing galleries to the new size Larges and optionally announce that everyone will be upgraded in 12 or 18 months. This seems like it achieves simplicity in the long run, provides a graceful transition period, gives new galleries the immediate benefit of the new size and gives customers plenty of time to adapt.

In another twist, it seems like user created themes or CSS customizations that assume a particular size of Large image might also have problems with the new size.

[Mike Lane]

My $0.02:

I think Smugmug is in danger of gallery style fatigue. Filmstrip? Sure! Critique, uh... well okay. Super large? Uh guys... I know that it's probably mostly the lazy themer / smugmug site designer in me, but when I already have to worry about styling:

• The homepage (that is a gallery after all)
• Smugmug
• Smugmug Small
• Traditional
• All Thumbs
• Slideshow Small
• Slideshow Medium
• Slideshow Large
• Journal
• Filmstrip Small
• Filmstrip Medium
• Filmstrip Large
• Single Image Small
• Single Image Medium
• Single Image Large
• Single Image Original
• Category pages
• Sub-category pages
• Password required pages
• empty gallery pages
• Make sure all the above styles work in the keyword galleries (which just go easier to do. Thanks!)
• Same for the Date pages (again, just got easier ... thanks!)
• Same for popular pages
• And of course the lightbox

I'd really rather not have to worry about Smugmug XL or Smugmug Gigantor or whatever it'd be called. Actually let's not forget all the other styles that will be affected. This is what I see being added to this list:

• Smugmug Gigantor
• Filmstrip Gigantor
• Slideshow Gigantor
• Single Image Gigantor
• All of the above for Keywords
• Same for Dates
• Same for Popular
• And my money is going on their eventually being a Critique gigantor too.

Obviously I know that the list that poor wittle me would have to update is smaller than your guys' by leaps and bounds. But the way I see it adding the gigantor image size would add 25% more galleries to worry about.

Okay, almost done...

Also I'm thinking that as a user who isn't all that familiar with Smugmug, being inundated with gallery styles wouldn't be a good thing. My limited experience watching people navigate my site who aren't familiar with Smugmug (and may have been a smidge tipsy - not me, them) was that they got frustrated by all the gallery style choices. Plus there seems to be some overlap with the gallery styles. Do we need an all thumbs and a traditional? Why not All Traditional (or captiony thumb goodness)? Single image and critique? Why not critique small, med, large? Filmstrip and non FS slideshow? Why not filmstrip with a FS slideshow button?

Combine, consolidate, and then expand If you did consolidate the gallery styles, I'd be all over the gigantor styles like DavidTO on a Mac But now I'm thinking, ugh, I'm not sure if $500 is enough of an incentive for me to do a theme and maybe it's time to think about increasing my rates.

Of course, I'm just one lazy guy with an agenda.

[pat.kane]

I like the idea of a larger size, but like Mike wonder what the overall impact is. Themes have been slow to roll out in any large quantity. This will make their completion even more difficult.

I've been looking over the images provided and am really at a loss right now for providing any constructive criticism on a better way to do it though. I'm sure if it's implemented, everyone will find a way to adapt.

[dmc]

Journal Large.... All my galleries use it...(I upgraded to Power user just for this customized view) If I could select how many pictures per page, I would like that....I would just up it to 50 pics per page, Large!

I just like to view my pics by dragging the scroll bar down, no clicking, black background, simple.

I am surprised you still haven't offered Journal Medium and Journal Large... It was an easy mod. (I mean, put options on the Journal view, don't make a bunch of new styles).

I know, I didn't respond to the original question, it was too complicated... my eyes glazed over... I just wanna see my pics.

It works so good now, I use smugmug to browse my pics, I don't even bother with my desktop software...

Enjoy the Butterflies Here

[asd]

I can't wait for larger images! I think that was one of the first things I wrote to support about after signing up last year.

I like jfriend's reasoning and vote for his solution. I guess that's #2.

At the same time I also get Mike Lane's complaints. I don't have the time to tinker and get in-depth with customizing my own site (and want to save visitors confusion), so I've instead forced all of my galleries to a specific style. A solution to Mike's problem might be to let us decide which styles are available to visitors of a gallery, just as we can do for product availability.

At any rate, I can't wait for the larger images!!

[joffun]

I don't know how many people post large images externally on forums etc, but as a proportion I would imagine that it is small.

Having different size images in the same gallery (#2) would look very odd & not at all streamlined IMO

As others have said, #3 sounds just sounds a bit messy

So out of the three I would go for #1

[bigwebguy]

I agree w/mike (thats twice in 2 days...something must be wrong w/me)

while i agree w/most of his points from a styler POV, i believe the bigger issue to be the user POV. There are just too many gallery templates. I'm sure you guys have staticstics that support your decisions, but from where I sit, I just dont see the need for filmstrip, critique and both allthumbs and traditional.

As a pretty knowledgeable user, I spend most of my time in sm-small style even though i have pretty hi rez displays (1280x1024) i vary rarely have a browser maximized to my full window and sm-small lets me see everything on one screen w/out having to scroll. If i need to find an image fast or use the bulk zoom hack, i'll switch to allthumbs. Anyone else i've ever watched use SM has only used SM style and maybe slideshow.

my suggestion, would be before or in concert with adding new huge image styles, to consolidate your existing styles:

- One smugmug style in the style picker then the user could select sm/med/lg/gigantor once in the gallery (like slideshow)

- combine allthumbs/traditional and allow users to select options for captions and number of thumbs per page

- let the user select sm/med/lg in journal style

- throw a big party, thank them for their service and then retire filmstrip and critique. yes i know critique has been incorporated in the new browse page...but it could be replaced with 'Most popular Sites/Photographers'

so that's my .02, but since you asked I vote for option 1.

[JamesJWeg]

Originally Posted by KMCC

Maybe I've had a long day, but I'm having trouble understanding the need for this change and I don't find much merit in any of the proposed solutions.

That is two of us. I have never really liked the idea of differant size depending on portrait vs landscape. How about having xl OFF by default so we don't have to go through all our exsisting gallies to change it if we don't want it? 1024x768 is getting too easy for people to steal the shot and get a good print, at that size it would be easy to get a good print of a protected photo. Maybe you could script it to have xl off by default on all exsisting galleries that are protected.

James.

[gblotter]

I'm not sure I see the need for XL either (change is bad, we fear change) ...

But if you are determined to move forward with XL, then I think option #1 is the only solution. Having all these provisions to display a differently sized "Large" photo will only be a support nightmare in the future - users will not be able to figure out what smugmug is doing and they will be bugging you constantly with questions. So just pick a size and go with it everywhere.

[ivar]

#1, i think the amount of problems occuring in forums, blogs etc will be minimal. Number 2 will give more people problems, and number 3 just sounds terrible.

I am also in favor of removing the critique/filmstrip and the possible traditional style. I am wondering if you guys at smugmug have any form of statistics about the number and type of forced styles. I wonder if alot of people force the critique and filmstrip styles. personally i have forced all my galleries in something other than those...

[{JT}]

Originally Posted by ivar

I am also in favor of removing the critique/filmstrip and the possible traditional style.

I think comments like this are the most surprising to me. No one forces you to use any of those styles - and no one says that you have to choose them in your gallery, so why the animosity?

I for one LOVE traditional. I usually want to see more thumbs than smugmug and larger than all thumbs view without the risk of stumbling on a gallery with 2000 photos (you know who you are! split those galleries up!)

As for critique and filmstrip - you'd be surprised at the good things we hear about them :)

[Andy]

Originally Posted by ivar

I am also in favor of removing the critique/filmstrip and the possible traditional style.

Lots of pros using Filmstrip.

Critique - it's a special purpose style - loupe, exif laid out nicely, it's all good

[bigwebguy]

Originally Posted by Andy

Lots of pros using Filmstrip.

Critique - it's a special purpose style - loupe, exif laid out nicely, it's all good

*Andy Williams is a compensated endorser for filmstrip and critique gallery styles

[rainforest1155]

Originally Posted by jfriend

#2 is probably the best compromise. Existing -L images stay the size they are, but Smugmug isn't burdened with forever supporting the existing size on new galleries. You could even give the user a control on a gallery basis or a site-wide basis to "upgrade" their Large images to the new size. If you think you have a reliable way to communicate with your customers, you could even announce that everyone will get converted in 12 months, so if you have any external links that rely on the current -L size, they should get fixed.

I agree with John that you should announce the images are started to get converted after let's say 6 or even 12 months like John proposed and at the same time give everyone the possibility in the control panel schedule the conversion now.

But I've also to agree with Mike and BWG with their concerns about the gallery style confusion. The whole style collection has get more streamlined as most visitors probably won't change the style at all - they just want to view some photos and not fiddle around with different possibilities to browse a gallery. So at least giving us an option to select the range of styles visitors can choose of would be very nice. I just can't think of a common visitor coming through google changing his style to filmstrip or critique.

Additionally I agree with others that say that the possible new XL-size should be disabled by default for pros. I also would go so far to propose that power-users can turn it off too as 1024px is a huge picture size and as a former power user I wouldn't be very happy that people out of a sudden can download any picture at that size without any trouble and I couldn't do anything about it. (I've larges enabled, but XL is too much from my point of view)

Thanks,
Sebastian

PS: I use Traditional view almost exclusively as it gives me a quicker overview.

[ivar]

Originally Posted by {JT}

I think comments like this are the most surprising to me. No one forces you to use any of those styles - and no one says that you have to choose them in your gallery, so why the animosity?

I for one LOVE traditional. I usually want to see more thumbs than smugmug and larger than all thumbs view without the risk of stumbling on a gallery with 2000 photos (you know who you are! split those galleries up!)

As for critique and filmstrip - you'd be surprised at the good things we hear about them :)

I've said that pretty much because of the same reason Mike/BWG gave. In all the smugmug sites i have seen from people, very few i have seen forcing the critique / filmstrip. That's also why i asked about the stats, of course if it is a well running style it should never get retired.

Personally these are a few things of those two.
-filmstrip: no clear beginning/end, no idea of how many photos there actually are and what you have seen already. It says how many photos there are , but in my head i don't get the same feeling. What doesn't help is the continuously moving strip, which makes me get loose track
-critique: i just don't see that many people would use it, only one image at a time, big with a lot of information that most people don't care about. Especially not the average Joe who is looking at family or vacation pictures. It would be great for people who are trying to learn from other people's photos though.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mean they are bad styles, i just don't see that alot of people would use it. And also, i could be totally wrong about the amount of people using those styles. I am seriously interested in stats about the use of them, if you have them and willing to share.

[flyingdutchie]

I totally agree with you, Mike!

I would not mind new gallery styles if (and only if) we, as smugmug gallery owners, could select which gallery styles are available to viewers.

Now, we only can force a gallery to be one style or allow all gallery styles. It is not possible to select more than one allowable gallery style (but not all).

I just don't want to be forced to go in and spend hours and hours styling the new gallery styles (Smugmug L and XL). If the feature i mentioned above was implemented, we could disable Smugmug L and XL until our styling of these gallery-types was done.

But thanks for the heads up, though!