So we're talking 10 images at 1600px vs. 20 images at 982 px - suggests a little wriggle room in favour of hoisting the Smuggie limit I'd say!
It depends upon how large you want the page load to be. The math says that 10 1600px images at 2:3 aspect ratio would be 10 x 1600 x 1066 = 17,066,660 whereas 20 982px images at the same 2:3 aspect ratio would be 20 x 982 x 654 = 12,844,560. So Smugmug's 10 are already significantly larger than The Frame's 20.
It depends upon how large you want the page load to be.
That's my point - how large I, as a paying subscriber, want the page load to be. Giving me a user parameter I can set (with an upper limit, obviously) would be one approach.
But what I'm suggesting is simply that the 10 image limit could be reviewed. This new style is great but it is a "journal" style, after all, and we're not all on dial-up connections - the world is moving on.
Yeah, scroll that gallery, you'll see that the 3:2 ratio shots fit your screen perfectly We had to make choices.
Here is a screenshot of a photo in 3:2 aspect ratio. As you can see, approximately 10% of the photo is cut off. And I'm not using a browser inundated with toolbars, status bars, etc.
It's even worse in Firefox with the default configuration. I wouldn't exactly say it fits my screen perfectly.
MasterCow
The cow that pays you!
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
I'm just surprised that you think it's ever the right thing to force vertical scrolling on a single image (e.g. make the image taller than the viewable area).
What we have currently on our test server is to crowd it so the image can include up to but not more than every available vertical pixel. One pixel more and it drops down to the next available display size.
It isn't unusual or surprising that the feedback we get on forums is different.
On the forums it's very clear that the standard is, don't create a situation where we can't see every pixel at the same time.
Off the forums it's very clear that the standard is, don't give me a smaller image if I can see most of it without scrolling (say, 90%).
That's my point - how large I, as a paying subscriber, want the page load to be. Giving me a user parameter I can set (with an upper limit, obviously) would be one approach.
But we have millions of viewers, each week, also. And we have to consider them.
But what I'm suggesting is simply that the 10 image limit could be reviewed. This new style is great but it is a "journal" style, after all, and we're not all on dial-up connections - the world is moving on.
We have and are reviewing it. It's 10 for now, if we can allow more and provide performance, and not make our ops go crazy, and our bankbook dry up, we'd do it.
It's all good! Nothing's forever, certainly where digital technologies are concerned.
One of the bummers we're struggling with is when the images get large, the subscriber is more likely to right-click-protect their images. When they do, you have to wait for the entire image to render before it displays, and the user (not the subscriber) hates that and the abandonment rate on the gallery goes way up.
That plays into the consideration for 10 versus some other number of images.
What we have currently on our test server is to crowd it so the image can include up to but not more than every available vertical pixel. One pixel more and it drops down to the next available display size.
Cool.
Ahhh yes, the challenges of direct customer feedback. Customers are always right when they tell you what problems they have, but they are not always right when they tell you what solution they want.
...On the forums it's very clear that the standard is, don't create a situation where we can't see every pixel at the same time.
Off the forums it's very clear that the standard is, don't give me a smaller image if I can see most of it without scrolling (say, 90%).
I think this is key, creators vs. viewers. It's perfectly understandable that every single one of the photographer's photos are his/her babies. For the visitor, not so much. They're likely "just" browsing, which is also understandable.
I think you guys have done the right thing, for this journal viewing style, to go for big rather than every pixel visible. To me, it looks and acts like a blog, and like someone said: "We're alrady scrolling..."
Malte
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
I think this is key, creators vs. viewers. It's perfectly understandable that every single one of the photographer's photos are his/her babies. For the visitor, not so much. They're likely "just" browsing, which is also understandable.
I think you guys have done the right thing, for this journal viewing style, to go for big rather than every pixel visible. To me, it looks and acts like a blog, and like someone said: "We're alrady scrolling..."
Malte
I think this is very good insight. I have a slightly different interpretation, which might be incorrect, but we probably arrive at the same place.
My interpretation is on the forums you get the pointy end (in a good sense). They're the ones entering the contests, posting about the rule of thirds, and and seeking feedback on composition. They care deeply about seeing every pixel at once.
There are many other subscribers, who would say of this gaucho shot,
"Look at the eyes on that horse! They're so dramatic when the shot is big." (photo credit: Reuters, used by permission)
They wouldn't even notice if the bottom 10% of the image was missing where they stopped, but they would notice the size if it was smaller.
I think the current compromise might be a good one: pick the largest vertical dimension you can vertically without losing a pixel, but then you insure the caption is missing unless you scroll to it.
A downside to that that's bugging me is what if we introduce a keyboard shortcut like the spacebar, similar to Google Reader? Then you can just spacebar to the next photo, but with this algorithm you miss the caption...
Calling this NEW STYLE "journal" is very misleading. It should be named something else.
I agree with Allen here. The old journal style emphasised the text, as much as the images, and the name was appropriate. The new journal is just a scrolling gallery of large images with captions, and I don't think that the name "journal" applies as well as previously.
OK folks, let's see how you like it now - portrait images should not exceed the browser height (should NOT require scrolling).
Landscape oriented images MAY require a tiny bit of scrolling, depending on your browser height. We go for max width for landscape-oriented images. And remember, for performance reasons, we're serving up pre-genned sizes (S, M, L, XL, X2, X3) so if your window is such that it's below the height of a pregenned size, you might get the size smaller.
OK folks, let's see how you like it now - portrait images should not exceed the browser height (should NOT require scrolling).
Landscape oriented images MAY require a tiny bit of scrolling, depending on your browser height. We go for max width for landscape-oriented images. And remember, for performance reasons, we're serving up pre-genned sizes (S, M, L, XL, X2, X3) so if your window is such that it's below the height of a pregenned size, you might get the size smaller.
Just so I understand your intent. On landscape images, you pick an image size that may cause some vertical scrolling to view all of the image (up to ~5% of the image) depending upon how the browser window height matches the pre-canned sizes?
Just so I understand your intent. On landscape images, you pick an image size that may cause some vertical scrolling to view all of the image (up to ~5% of the image) depending upon how the browser window height matches the pre-canned sizes?
For landscape images, we pick the largest size that will fit the horizontal space available, regardless of the available height. This works really well for the most common resolutions with a maximized browser window.
We just changed the algorithm for portrait images to maximize based on the vertical space available (no more scrolling to see the full image).
For landscape images, we pick the largest size that will fit the horizontal space available, regardless of the available height. This works really well for the most common resolutions with a maximized browser window.
We just changed the algorithm for portrait images to maximize based on the vertical space available (no more scrolling to see the full image).
Hmmm. So at some window heights, you cannot see any full landscape image on screen at once. Sure seems odd to me. I guess I'll avoid the new journal style. Too bad, I thought it had promise. I get that you want images as large as possible, but I do NOT get why you purposely pick a size that requires scrolling to view. I thought the whole point of picking a dynamic size was to avoid scrolling, while still picking the largest possible image. I don't get it.
Comments
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 what I'm suggesting is simply that the 10 image limit could be reviewed. This new style is great but it is a "journal" style, after all, and we're not all on dial-up connections - the world is moving on.
It's even worse in Firefox with the default configuration. I wouldn't exactly say it fits my screen perfectly.
The cow that pays you!
It isn't unusual or surprising that the feedback we get on forums is different.
On the forums it's very clear that the standard is, don't create a situation where we can't see every pixel at the same time.
Off the forums it's very clear that the standard is, don't give me a smaller image if I can see most of it without scrolling (say, 90%).
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
That plays into the consideration for 10 versus some other number of images.
Yes please! Slideshow hack needs to become homepage module and/or something you add/customize in EZC.
I love New Journal!
Malte
Ahhh yes, the challenges of direct customer feedback. Customers are always right when they tell you what problems they have, but they are not always right when they tell you what solution they want.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I think this is key, creators vs. viewers. It's perfectly understandable that every single one of the photographer's photos are his/her babies. For the visitor, not so much. They're likely "just" browsing, which is also understandable.
I think you guys have done the right thing, for this journal viewing style, to go for big rather than every pixel visible. To me, it looks and acts like a blog, and like someone said: "We're alrady scrolling..."
Malte
My interpretation is on the forums you get the pointy end (in a good sense). They're the ones entering the contests, posting about the rule of thirds, and and seeking feedback on composition. They care deeply about seeing every pixel at once.
There are many other subscribers, who would say of this gaucho shot,
"Look at the eyes on that horse! They're so dramatic when the shot is big." (photo credit: Reuters, used by permission)
They wouldn't even notice if the bottom 10% of the image was missing where they stopped, but they would notice the size if it was smaller.
I think the current compromise might be a good one: pick the largest vertical dimension you can vertically without losing a pixel, but then you insure the caption is missing unless you scroll to it.
A downside to that that's bugging me is what if we introduce a keyboard shortcut like the spacebar, similar to Google Reader? Then you can just spacebar to the next photo, but with this algorithm you miss the caption...
changed back to to journal old and the images are unable to be lifted off the site to my desktop
cheers
....... Big Pix
Lake Macquarie NSW Australia
www.bigpix.smugmug.com
Please do not EDIT
my Images
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Hi,
I love the new Journal!
When posting an image from a Journal style page to a forum, how do I choose a smaller size?
Thanks, John
http://www.jcgallery.com
My Website index | My Blog
I agree with Allen here. The old journal style emphasised the text, as much as the images, and the name was appropriate. The new journal is just a scrolling gallery of large images with captions, and I don't think that the name "journal" applies as well as previously.
We're updating our sharing / link feature for the new style
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
images do not stretch. So it would be very difficult or not possible.
My Website index | My Blog
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Landscape oriented images MAY require a tiny bit of scrolling, depending on your browser height. We go for max width for landscape-oriented images. And remember, for performance reasons, we're serving up pre-genned sizes (S, M, L, XL, X2, X3) so if your window is such that it's below the height of a pregenned size, you might get the size smaller.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
the height? Just curious.
My Website index | My Blog
For landscape images, we pick the largest size that will fit the horizontal space available, regardless of the available height. This works really well for the most common resolutions with a maximized browser window.
We just changed the algorithm for portrait images to maximize based on the vertical space available (no more scrolling to see the full image).
Currently we treat it as a landscape image and maximize it based on the horizontal space available.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question