New Design - Gallery descriptions

Allen · June 1, 2011

I hope you all reconsider the gallery description changes. It TOTALLY borks
the main purpose of my site. Years of work down the drain.

jfriend · June 2, 2011

MakeMeShutter wrote: »

I will ask this again for the third time.

Will the following HTML gallery still function within the "New Design" ?
http://www.shawnkrausphoto.com/PicturesForYourWalls/The-Art-Gallery/The-Silhouette-Exhibit/16826949_WDSktc

Now I will ask if my Google Calendar will cease to function as well ?
I notice that it is entered in the gallery description.

If we are forced to use the new design and choose to cancel our accounts, will we be refunded money for the remainder of the year?

--Shawn

If you are not allowed to use custom HTML in a gallery description (as Ben said a few posts earlier), then neither of those pages will work. I'd like to see how Smugmug plans to answer this and handle this issue. There are thousands of customers with this issue.

BrandonJFX · June 2, 2011

It seems like the biggest problem everyone has is not having HTML in the descriptions.
I would like to hear everyone's opinion about this idea...

A HTML Migration option.
I noticed that Ben said that there will be HTML pages - but as jfriend pointed out, it would take countless hours to move everything from your descriptions to these new HTML specific pages.

Well what if thre was an option to automatically or even semi-automatically to move the HTML you have in a description to a new HTML page.

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this idea... Now I have another one

What about on the new HTML pages, if we could bring in elements from a gallery page (i.e. A breadcrumb, or a set of thumbnails). I'm sure that would be a big help for a lot of people.

Let me know what you guys think!
- Brandon

Allen · June 2, 2011

I have ~550 galleries with 24500 photo in them that my navigation in the
gallery descriptions will be destroyed with no alternate way to
accomplished it. It has to be in every gallery page description. gallery gallery

Ben: Using gallery descriptions for purposes not intended
Ben: Instead of jamming all this stuff in a field not intended for it
By WHOSE not intended purposes? I've seen nothing written that we're
violating anyone's intentions. Sounds like "it's my way or the highway".
You might not realized that everyone doesn't just want a pretty display of
photos and this new style will ruin that.

Ben: It is very unlikely that we can allow full HTML
So what would be allowed? I've seen nothing that would allow any
formatting, div's, etc. in the description. Formatting like in simple table
columns. I also use div's in my description so I can hide it in lightbox.

TalkieT · June 2, 2011

TalkieT wrote: »

[snip] suggests that the big switch will be to change the DEFAULT smugmug... Does this mean that someone could elect to never be switched to the new Smugmug system?

[snip]

Finally, if there's anything you are going to be taking away, PLEASE BE UP FRONT ABOUT IT. We've already noticed the HTML affects some customisations quite heavily. For example, is that something you WILL reinstate, WON'T reinstate, or don't know yet?

[snip]

Quoting my own message as quite a few posts from SMugmug have happened since I posted these questions and no answers... I'm hoping it's because it was missed, and not because the answer is that the change will in fact be forced on everyone at some point, or because some options will be removed and not replaced.

Reading between the lines about how some customisation has caused support issues, I am concerned that Smugmug may try to limit the level of customisation on the new platform.

Cheers - N

Ben · June 2, 2011

TalkieT wrote: »

Quoting my own message as quite a few posts from SMugmug have happened since I posted these questions and no answers... I'm hoping it's because it was missed, and not because the answer is that the change will in fact be forced on everyone at some point, or because some options will be removed and not replaced.

Reading between the lines about how some customisation has caused support issues, I am concerned that Smugmug may try to limit the level of customisation on the new platform.

Cheers - N

We won't be maintaining the current gallery style alongside the new one. When the switch does finally come, you won't be able to use the old one.

We also have no desire to cripple customization, especially not for support reasons. As I mentioned before in this thread, we want to expand customization. We want to make it more robust, allow you to do more stuff and do it better. This means rebuilding it with customization in mind, with everything we have learned over the years since we first built the architecture.

TalkieT · June 2, 2011

Ben wrote: »

We won't be maintaining the current gallery style alongside the new one. When the switch does finally come, you won't be able to use the old one.

We also have no desire to cripple customization, especially not for support reasons. As I mentioned before in this thread, we want to expand customization. We want to make it more robust, allow you to do more stuff and do it better. This means rebuilding it with customization in mind, with everything we have learned over the years since we first built the architecture.

Cool, thanks for the clarity.

You realise of course, (But DO say it out loud a few times to see how it REALLY sounds), that you are telling people with hundreds or thousands of hours invested in customisations that they have to do it again. (At least some of it)

Every one of your users with advanced customisations will need to rebuild their sites. I know I fall into the hundreds of hours (several hundred) of customisation - both on my own and with help from the community here.

I'm scared.

I know progress has to happen, and I _really_ hope you're taking the opportunity to engineer your weekly outages out of the system, and that progress doesn't come without a price, but say it again.

"Every one of your users with advanced customisation will have to do it again"

Now, imagine standing face to face with users, some of whom will have paid for their cusomisation, and telling them that, to their face.

If you can do that with a good conscience then go for it - I look forward to the changes.

But please, get rid of the planned outage windows. I really hope you're not re-engineering stuff to this degree and missing that.

Cheers - N

Ben · June 2, 2011

TalkieT wrote: »

Cool, thanks for the clarity.

You realise of course, (But DO say it out loud a few times to see how it REALLY sounds), that you are telling people with hundreds or thousands of hours invested in customisations that they have to do it again. (At least some of it)

Every one of your users with advanced customisations will need to rebuild their sites. I know I fall into the hundreds of hours (several hundred) of customisation - both on my own and with help from the community here.

I'm scared.

I know progress has to happen, and I _really_ hope you're taking the opportunity to engineer your weekly outages out of the system, and that progress doesn't come without a price, but say it again.

"Every one of your users with advanced customisation will have to do it again"

Now, imagine standing face to face with users, some of whom will have paid for their cusomisation, and telling them that, to their face.

If you can do that with a good conscience then go for it - I look forward to the changes.

But please, get rid of the planned outage windows. I really hope you're not re-engineering stuff to this degree and missing that.

Cheers - N

If we do it right, you aren't talking about replacing hundreds of hours of customization work. You are talking about migrating it, not starting from scratch. We are already tinkering with migrating a few of our themes as sort of a dry-run, and a lot of it just works. I don't want to get into more details until we know more, because I don't want to make promises I can't keep. But you really shouldn't have to throw everything out and start with a blank slate.

denisegoldberg · June 2, 2011

Ben wrote: »

When talking rollout, we plan to allow you to opt-in and start customizing long before we make the big switch. I believe jfriend was worried about this, with others getting access first. Won't happen. We want to give you as much time as possible to get everything set. Our basic idea right now is to allow you to customize against the new style and see it as owner-only (your customers would get old style, old customization). Once you are ready to go, you can then opt in fully... or just wait for the official switch over. Sound sane?

Not totally. Many of us have used html-only galleries, or have placed HTML in the gallery descriptions of galleries containing photos.

How can I customize against the new style and see it as owner-only if the customizations affect the gallery descriptions? Are you going to give us a mirror of our site to customize?

And please don't come back and say you don't intend to support HTML in the gallery description. Whether you (SmugMug) intended this or not, it was promoted as a use here on dgrin, and that wasn't just by customers but by smug employees as well.

Ben wrote: »

- The reason we aren't talking specifics on customization yet, is simply that there aren't hard details yet. Why? Because we haven't talked to all of you guys yet, and so we haven't set the rules in stone yet. We have brought customizers in, and talked through our plans, but we haven't yet covered all bases obviously. Expect separate discussions in the not-too-distant future centered entirely around customization. We want to make sure we know what you are doing, and we want to make it as easy as humanly possible to migrate. We will have lots of resources, lots of help available. We have lost a lot of sleep over this. The whole reason to do this is that customization will be WAY more robust and powerful. We just want to make sure the migration isn't harder than it needs to be.

You've talked to customizers? There are many many more people customizing smug sites than the folks who are selling customization services.

What kind of help are you planning to provide? There are many many customers who have been asking for help in the forums who have been playing copy & paste games with code who don't have a clue how to construct or maintain that code. How will those people get from their current sites to the new smug? Some of us try to help by providing explanations as well as code - but it's quite obvious by looking at the code on some of the sites that people are grasping without knowledge.

Ben wrote: »

- Gallery descriptions (and captions). We hear you. It is very unlikely that we can allow full HTML in these fields the way we have in the past, but that doesn't mean we can't do more than we are doing now.

So you're planning to release by removing functionality. That's not a good plan.

Yes, I know, there are probably many people who aren't using the description at all, and many who are using plain text. But there are also many of us who use HTML in the gallery descriptions.

Ben wrote: »

- Other authentication methods for comments? We don't want anonymous comments, but Facebook isn't the only one offering authentication services. No promises here, their APIs have to be robust, and they have to have enough customers to be worth it.

As I said in an earlier post, Facebook as the only non-smug authentication is really unacceptable.

Ben wrote: »

If we do it right, you aren't talking about replacing hundreds of hours of customization work. You are talking about migrating it, not starting from scratch. We are already tinkering with migrating a few of our themes as sort of a dry-run, and a lot of it just works. I don't want to get into more details until we know more, because I don't want to make promises I can't keep. But you really shouldn't have to throw everything out and start with a blank slate.

You do realize that many of us don't use your themes at all, right? Have you looked at experimenting with migrating some of your customer's sites?

I'd love to understand how I am going to get from my current customization where I use my own html-only screens in place of your category / subcategory screens (as noted in this post) to the new smugmug. I will need to replace the gallery descriptions in all of my galleries as part of that change since I have placed my own version of the breadcrumb in the galleries. I haven't used smug's breadcrumb in a couple of years since it takes viewers to your category / subcategory screens with your unacceptably small thumbs.

Beyond that, more questions for your FAQ:

I asked in an earlier post if the thumbs would be larger. Andy said that larger thumbs were in the plans, but didn't answer my question about how large. If you're planning on just making them 150x150 instead of the current ridiculous mix of 100x100 and 150x150 - that's not large enough. So - how large will the thumbs be?

I'd like to see a sample of the category / subcategory pages - or their replacements assuming that the multiple levels that is indicated as under way in user voice is going to be part of this release. I certainly hope that you've removed the need for the 4-across hack and have gone for a more modern look that gallery name next to thumb.

I would like to see the option of moving the slideshow button and the next page / next photo buttons moved above the photo. Give me the option as the gallery owner - putting those on the bottom of the screen means that many viewers will not see how to move between gallery pages - especially since an open description pushes them below the viewable browser window. I know, I know, you all use large screen monitors and it doesn't matter. But I use a laptop a good part of the time, and there are many other folks out there who do as well. Don't design for the large screen only.

As part of the new customization tools, are you going to add support for defining a class that we can then assign to specified galleries? So if I had some CSS that set 5 properties that I wanted to apply to 10 galleries, I would define the "class" once, then reference it for the specified galleries.

I asked in an earlier post but didn't see an answer. What's the status of the gallery style Journal (Old)? I only use it for one gallery, but there is no other gallery style that meets my needs for that particular purpose. That gallery is a link with words to all of my travel galleries - 1 photo, a description of my trip, and links to the photo galleries and blog entries for that trip. I need something similar if the style no longer exists.

--- Denise

BKGPhoto · June 3, 2011

You say we will be able to opt out of the new smug, but for how long? Can I just keep my site the way it is and never switch? I have spent hundreds of hours customizing my site with the help of all the awesome people on here. Although I love everyone who has taken the time to help me, their is no way in he** that I am going to spend that time again. I like my site the way it is as Im sure many thousands of your customers do. What about everyone that paid for their customization? Are you going to pay for the new changes? You really should conduct some kind of poll about these changes. I can tell you that unless it's relatively effortless for me to migrate to the new smug, I'm out. I'll move on to a WP based site. I'm actually losing sleep over the thought of having to spend god knows how many hours revamping. You're talking about millions and millions of hours of customization gone just like that. I just can't take the chance of wasting all that time again. What happens in two years when you decide uh oh time to change it up again??? I understand the need for change and improvement, but I'm extremely dissapointed that this is being forced on us. I feel there should have been some kind of poll taken before you started working on this. I love smugmug, but I don't see this ending well at all.

jfriend · June 3, 2011

Allen wrote: »

I have ~550 galleries with 24500 photo in them that my navigation in the
gallery descriptions will be destroyed with no alternate way to
accomplished it. It has to be in every gallery page description. gallery gallery

Ben: Using gallery descriptions for purposes not intended
Ben: Instead of jamming all this stuff in a field not intended for it
By WHOSE not intended purposes? I've seen nothing written that we're
violating anyone's intentions. Sounds like "it's my way or the highway".
You might not realized that everyone doesn't just want a pretty display of
photos and this new style will ruin that.

As an interesting example, this post is from today - a Smugmug employee recommending custom HTML in the gallery description.

WinsomeWorks · June 3, 2011

jfriend wrote: »

As an interesting example, this post is from today - a Smugmug employee recommending custom HTML in the gallery description.

Yikes. I was starting to do a lot of linking of galleries to eachother in the descriptions. What a pain if we're unable to do that anymore except the ugly way (after I just learned the pretty way to do it).

caroline · June 3, 2011

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.

So what is the score with adding more galleries with html, links etc in the descriptions?

Caroline

onethumb · June 3, 2011

New Design - Gallery descriptions
The discussion from our Sneak Peek experiment around gallery descriptions is interesting and heated. We hear you loud & clear - it's a big issue. So big, in fact, that it gets its own thread.

WinsomeWorks · June 3, 2011

For my own interests (so far, anyway), I'd probably be able to survive not having html in my descriptions or captions without much griping, if the following became true:

1. As part of overall site themes or category choices or something, we were allowed choices (in our titles, descriptions & captions) of: a. fonts b. font size c. boldness d. font color

2. In our descriptions and captions, we were allowed a simple & pretty way to link elsewhere (to other photos, galleries, or even other sites)3. As per #1 above, one thing that was frustrating with the lack of those choices is when you released a bunch of fantastic new themes, but all of them had tiny little captions & no bold in the gallery titles. (breadcrumbs became very unclear then, too) So it was a bunch of great themes with little functionality. That made me start using html & CSS to "fix" them. What would make a lot more sense (to me) is this: if you can't allow us individual choices like fonts & boldness & font size, then make various themes that have those choices built-in and just let us choose the color of them! (let us choose any hex colors). Then we'd have the great benefit of using a huge variety of colors, yet with some set Smug theme-designs that are instead based on those other elements I mentioned (font-related elements). That would also be a way to rejuvenate some of the old themes that people are still using & bring them into the new design, too. People could maybe still use some of those colors (by way of choosing hex colors) or themes (all stretchy I hope), but you'd have a new set of fonts & stuff that you'd plop in there as a "theme" choice, instead of having the theme choice be primarily color-based. That way of choosing themes is just too limiting in this day & age, and is imho an old way of thinking of site design. Yes, keep the ornamental themes too, but just enable some way of our using them with these new font-set-design choices. Make sense? You would make a lot of people so much happier while having a more unified-looking site, if you'd just have some great overall designs based on fonts, while letting people have the whole gamut of color to combine that with... much less limiting.

Having said all that, I really don't see how you can, in good faith, dis-allow your long-time customers from using Html in their 100s of 1000s of galleries that now use it. Even if it only cripples me a tiny bit, I see how terrible this would be for people to whom you've been recommending it all these years. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of work they'd have in order to switch over. (& like one person observed, they don't even have record of which galleries are using it!) Obviously, many would have to rebuild their sites almost from ground up. I don't see html getting less use across the web, either.... if anything, it's more, as the average person can go online & begin using it w/ a few tutorials. Since devices aren't going away from reading it, etc., it's just hard to see SmugMug's point in ditching it all.

caroline · June 3, 2011

How long are you going to let this thread get without commenting?
Well I guess it's good that you realize how important using Gallery description with html is to many people as you've split these posts off, but really you need to make some meaningful response.

I ask again what is the point in creating new galleries with html in the description from this point forward if they, along with all predecessors will need reworking?

Should I be trying to locate all my galleries using html in the descriptions now in readiness?

I fear your reluctance to answer the points being raised is because you already know that our worst fears will be realized, and YOU WILL LOSE CUSTOMERS. This will also happen if you fail to address these questions at this early stage.

As an example, I can't imagine how Allen,Denise, John and no doubt many others really feel about this possibility, particularily those who have given so very generously of their time here in the forums helping others.

Caroline

Andy · June 3, 2011

caroline wrote: »

Well I guess it's good that you realize how important using Gallery description with html is to many people as you've split these posts off, but really you need to make some meaningful response.

I ask again what is the point in creating new galleries with html in the description from this point forward if they, along with all predecessors will need reworking?

Should I be trying to locate all my galleries using html in the descriptions now in readiness?

I fear your reluctance to answer the points being raised is because you already know that our worst fears will be realized, and YOU WILL LOSE CUSTOMERS. This will also happen if you fail to address these questions at this early stage.

As an example, I can't imagine how Allen,Denise, John and no doubt many others really feel about this possibility, particularily those who have given so very generously of their time here in the forums helping others.

Caroline

Hi Caroline, we're not reluctant to answer anything

We've even updated the FAQ here, post #2 http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=198816 so have a read of that please, thanks.

We will comment further here, too - allow us time to digest and get back to you, thanks!

caroline · June 3, 2011

Andy wrote: »

Hi Caroline, we're not reluctant to answer anything We've even updated the FAQ here, post #2 http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=198816 so have a read of that please, thanks.

We will comment further here, too - allow us time to digest and get back to you, thanks!

Hi Andy,
Thanks very much for your response - I would not have found that post without your reference to it!

So to be absolutely clear - is there a problem with creating new galleries that have html in the descriptions?

Caroline

denisegoldberg · June 3, 2011

Andy wrote: »

...we're not reluctant to answer anything We've even updated the FAQ here, post #2 http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=198816 so have a read of that please, thanks.

We will comment further here, too - allow us time to digest and get back to you, thanks!

The FAQ is a start, but there are many other questions that have been posted without any answers.

I asked about the thumb size on category pages and you gave what I would consider a non-answer - you said they would be larger than the current but did not respond when I asked how large they would be.

I also asked some questions in this post that I would like to see answered.

I'm a bit taken aback by your reaction to our reaction to the statement that we wouldn't be able to place HTML in the gallery description. Many of us use HTML in descriptions, and many of us have HTML-only pages. I think I read into one of the statements somewhere in the now 3 threads about this topic that there would be the ability to have HTML pages - is that true?

--- Denise

Allen · June 3, 2011

denisegoldberg wrote: »

... I think I read into one of the statements somewhere in the now 3 threads about this topic that there would be the ability to have HTML pages - is that true?

--- Denise

Be very careful what you read into this. I've also read that they want to
create a form or something to fill out to create these html pages, doesn't
sound like free html design to me.

Allen · June 3, 2011

BrandonJFX wrote: »

...
Well what if thre was an option to automatically or even semi-automatically to move the HTML you have in a description to a new HTML page.
...

We are talking apples and oranges. There are galleries that use the
description for creating the whole html page, Guestbook, Services, About,
etc. But the html in question is connected to a gallery with a set of
photos to be read on every gallery page.

So why would you move whole html pages created in the description to a
new html page?

I guess if you created a separate style "html page" this
might be appropriate. But it has to allow free html with no restrictions.
Then the other styles can focus on photos.

Also comments are not active without a photo in the gallery so comments
would have to be enabled. Think Guestbook.

denisegoldberg · June 3, 2011

Allen wrote: »

Be very careful what you read into this. I've also read that they want to create a form or something to fill out to create these html pages, doesn't sound like free html design to me.

That sounds pretty unacceptable to me.

I'm a bit blown away by the fact that creation of html-only galleries is documented in smug's http://www.smugmug.com/help/customize-faq and that fact seems to have been forgotten.

We need html-only galleries still, and we need the ability to put html in gallery descriptions. (I know, I know, you feel the same way!)

--- Denise

Andy · June 3, 2011

denisegoldberg wrote: »

That sounds pretty unacceptable to me.

Our plan is to make a better, easier way to make HTML-only galleries. Stay tuned, we won't let you down.

Allen · June 3, 2011

Andy wrote: »

Our plan is to make a better, easier way to make HTML-only galleries. Stay tuned, we won't let you down.

All we need is a text box to enter html. Including links, div's, classes, tables,
lists, images, etc. The ability to use new classes to apply to multiple
html pages or not.

jfriend · June 3, 2011

Allen wrote: »

All we need is a text box to enter html. Including links, div's, classes, tables,
lists, images, etc. The ability to use new classes to apply to multiple
html pages or not.

FYI to Allen and Denise - I've been invited over to Smug HQ next Tuesday (I live close by) to discuss this customization issue. What SM is trying to accomplish by removing some customizing abilities in galleries is a mystery to me so I'll be asking lots of questions and come prepared with lots of examples of existing customizations. If you (Allen and Denise) want to send me specific examples of gallery customizations that you think are important and I should be sure to represent and wouldn't already be on my list, you can reach me via email through my dgrin profile.

I'm all for new customizing options (like real HTML pages) if they're not crippled in some way (and if there's a meaningful migration path) since making HTML pages out of gallery descriptions has always been a big hack and besides leading to CSS overload, it probably also downgrades SEO because the page has so much distracting stuff on it.

Though the cat seems to have gotten out of the bag before they were really ready to answer questions publicly and go public with the overall solution, it does appear that they are now trying to understand the issue better. I just hope we can help guide things to a reasonable solution. Right now, from what I've heard so far, I have a pit in my stomach because of all the uncertainty around whether the uber-customizable Smugmug site is no more and they are interested in imposing limits on what you can and can't do, not only for my own sites, but for the zillions of others we've helped. That's the main reason I like Smugmug. I would have left awhile ago if I couldn't have built some of the customizations I have.

Between the three of us, we have 55,000 dgrin posts - most of which are probably in the customizing forum. We've seen a lot of customized sites and helped people do a lot of things - many of which are not "standard" things. Though that pit in my stomach comes from where things appear to be now, the good news is they are trying to listen now. Presumably we'll see in the next few weeks if things are going in a good direction.

Andy · June 3, 2011

jfriend wrote: »

FYI to Allen and Denise - I've been invited over to Smug HQ next Tuesday (I live close by)

So glad you're doing this. Thanks ever so much, John!

denisegoldberg · June 3, 2011

jfriend wrote: »

FYI to Allen and Denise - I've been invited over to Smug HQ next Tuesday (I live close by) to discuss this customization issue.

Thanks John. I suspect you have us covered already but I'll put a list of my concerns together.

--- Denise

Erick L · June 3, 2011

What about html in captions? What will happen to multilingual sites?

jfriend · June 4, 2011

Erick L wrote: »

What about html in captions? What will happen to multilingual sites?

onethumb's post says they plan to limit what can be in captions, but isn't real specific. It says basic formatting will be allowed, but "page destroying HTML" will not be.

The very phrasing of HTML as "page destroying" doesn't sound good and hints at their point of view on letting us use our own custom HTML. It sounds like because some people goof up their HTML and mess up their page, they want to prohibit all of us from using our own HTML. That's an unfortunate direction for the site to go.

Allen · June 4, 2011

jfriend wrote: »

onethumb's post says they plan to limit what can be in captions, but isn't real specific. It says basic formatting will be allowed, but "page destroying HTML" will not be.

The very phrasing of HTML as "page destroying" doesn't sound good and hints at their point of view on letting us use our own custom HTML. It sounds like because some people goof up their HTML and mess up their page, they want to prohibit all of us from using our own HTML. That's an unfortunate direction for the site to go.

Wait till everyone that uses journal (old) for a pricing page get a big
surprise when their prices are all boggled up. Many use a bulleted list.
Assuming these (no html) changes go to all styles eventually.
Limiting html in text boxes is going to be a nightmare.

Andy · June 4, 2011

Allen wrote: »

Wait till everyone that uses journal (old) for a pricing page get a big
surprise when their prices are all boggled up. Many use a bulleted list.
Assuming these (no html) changes go to all styles eventually.
Limiting html in text boxes is going to be a nightmare.

Or, we could come up with a much better way than using a Journal (old) gallery for such a use

New Design - Gallery descriptions

Comments