Thanks, that tells me a lot. I'm still looking forward to the new site but just hoping that it won't be a year or something before we actually get to see it...
Admittedly, I'm an extremely tech-oriented individual, but allow me to say that I'm quite impressed. With this new design you're bringing SmugMug into a much more modern appearance. The old cluttered, decade-behind structure has always bugged me. Bravo! Knowing how some people fear code, I can understand why there are concerns here. My advice is to slow down and breathe before having a kitten. The guys upstairs have said numerous times that you will have months to update your sites. Even with my CSS experience I'm very happy to see some of the infrastructure simplifications; they'll certainly make my life easier.
I can tell that many here have never taken part in beta testing or used pre-release products. Before writing off a product based solely on a preview that's months away from release-candidacy, understand that very dramatic changes can happen in that time. Give them a chance to listen to your (hopefully) calm, constructive feedback. I'm actually rather surprised at being granted this early of a preview; a testament to where their focus truly is.
I really like the direction this is moving! I'll be most interested in seeing how you maintain html in the descriptions as for my portfolio galleries I like displaying an animoto slideshow before I show the images below it. Was mildly freaked out when I switched to the preview and that was gone heh.
The Edit button below the image should have an option to move the image to a different gallery. Currently with this design (and the old design) you have to go into the bulk move screen and find the image in a huge list of thumbnails.
I see some negative feedbacks from many users here, especially the ones with lots of customizations. That is understandable.
However, I think this '2.0' is really necessary, and Smugmug is at least on the right direction. The 'base' product Smugmug offers now is seriously dated. Granted, there are 'older' designs out there still, but Smugmug has indeed fallen behind. I was in fact very worried that Smugmug would become content and stop innovating. I am very glad Smugmug is revamping the underlying design and architecture to join 2011!
Customization stuff aside, I wouldn't call the new design radical in anyway. The loading speed is much improved, but imho, the UI is still not streamlined enough. UI elements are still sticking out too much. Just like Chrome (the browser), I hope Smugmug further 'condenses' things. The whole section below the main photo is still a mess and taking up way too much space. Those 'bubbles' around the UI elements are still very dated.
I for one don't think it's necessary to see so many thumbnails. I would love to see that space to be better used. There's too much empty space in the header area as well.... also, I dont like the pop up EXIF. anything pop up just does not feel 'integrated'.
Overall though, certainly in the right direction... and I think Smugmug cannot delay this any longer... a much needed revamp!
In the latest iteration the thumbs pagination buttons are taking up two of the thumbnail spots. I don't see the gain in this since the bar under thumbs is still there.
Just some quick notes, I do not like having two less thumbs per internal
page because of the added page nav thumbs.
All navigation is still below the window and can not be seen without scrolling.
The prints button is still the ugliest thing I've every seen.
The html is now working in the descriptions but it doesn't seem to be
picking any formatting from the html, at least for tables. Seems the print
button is hogging the space on the right. Not a good place for it.
So far I see nothing with this new, whatever you call it, style that's better
then the old style other then maybe the engine.
I do not see a notLoggedIn class on the page. This is used a lot.
I agree with Allen & Malte - I don't want a next "arrow" on my thumbs.
The paging controls are below the visible space in the browser window, forcing scrolling. This is very poor design. I know, that's a bit blunt, but the behavior is unacceptable.
A line of dots to switch pages is pretty but not recognizeable as paging controls. Give me the option to show text in addition to the dots.
I want the paging controls above the photos so it doesn't have a chance of scrolling off of the page. I said this in my feedback before, and I know I'm not the only person who expressed this desire / concern.
There need to be choices of colors for the buy button. While I want it to be noticed, the bright colors and the size are not acceptable. You've made it easy to find the buy button to purchase photos but you've made it difficult to scroll through the gallery.
Again - I want the ability to place all of the paging controls above the thumbs and photos. Make it an option - for people who want cleaner but harder to navigate sites, the controls can remain off the bottom of the page. For those of us who want to make it easy on our viewers, the controls can be moved above the photos.
I like the new navigation: I don't have to scroll down. Not sure if the circles are obvious enough... they were for me but I don't know about customers. As for the nav buttons on the 1st and last photos of the page... hmm. I think they would be better placed on the sides, in the middle. With the way it is now, the thumbnails that they're on are square. Looks kinda wierd when I have thumbnails set to "original."
Like I said, I like how I don't have to scroll down. That bar stops just at the bottom of my window! I understand this will probably change when I put in my customizations, but I like the way it is.
The Buy button is, well, that old shade of SM green. I'd make the left side a different color, but I understand if you want to use SM's shade of green.
HTML is coming along nicely. I see that the "no photos" box is there, whereas it isn't in the old design. Also, the new design doesn't use the whole page... items which should be centered are a little to the left.
I don't like the unlisted gallery icon when I'm logged out. I don't want visitors seeing that.
I love the new no-underline links!
Overall, you guys are doing very well. Keep up the good work!
I like the new navigation: I don't have to scroll down. ...
You have to realize that everyone at Smug has >30" monitors so that's what
they want to look pretty. I have a 24" inch and the nav stuff is below the
window, think how every laptop will look.
I'm on a laptop with 15.4" or 15.6." That's what the screen grab above is from.
The problem doesn't appear to be caused by the screen size - it appears to be related to the presense of anything in the gallery description. The description shouldn't force the paging icons to be off the viewable portion of the browser window.
All of my descriptions contain at least 2 lines. Some contain more.
You have to realize that everyone at Smug has >30" monitors so that's what
they want to look pretty. I have a 24" inch and the nav stuff is below the
window, think how every laptop will look.
We actually work on and test in many different screen resolutions, Allen.
I am still disappointed by how much is below the fold. I have to scroll down to see the captions. If I did not know that there were captions there, I would not think or know to look at them. I would be willing to lose a row of thumbnails to prevent having to scroll. I have the same issue with the Slideshow option, in that cause I would take having the caption next to the image or a smaller image. In a perfect world, it would be gallery owner selectable . Perhaps - always show Captions & Like buttons.
You have to realize that everyone at Smug has >30" monitors so that's what
they want to look pretty. I have a 24" inch and the nav stuff is below the
window, think how every laptop will look.
Allen, I value your feedback a great deal, but it doesn't help me want to pay attention when you just invent facts to support your case.
Our test suite includes mobile phones, tablets, laptops ranging from 11" to 17", and desktops with a wide range of displays. Our target resolution is 1024x768, with 1280x800 and similar sizes a close second.
BTW, I'm not aware of anyone at SmugMug with a display >30".
With the slideshow button sitting next to the gallery title in the breadcrumb - it looks like it's displayed in a div with part of the breadcrumb. What happens when I suppress the display of the breadcrumb? Do I lose the slideshow button? Or does the button stay and take up a link by itself? Either of these is unacceptable.
I'd like to see the slideshow button next to and with the same prominence as the buy button. Both should be immediately above the large photo in smugmug style. The slideshow button should be a little more prominent than it is now and the buy button a little less prominent than it's current "in your face" look". (the current buy button pulls the eye away from the large photo - I want my photos highlighted, not a button!)
New release is out. I updated the FAQ and the Changelog at the beginning of this thread.
We continue to listen and iterate. We'd especially love people to spend a few days playing with and getting used to the new page navigation design to see how it sits with you after use.
We've been designing, building, and testing hundreds of variations on the page navigation concept, and this is the one we like best so far. I expect there will be more iterations as we incorporate more feedback and testing.
We have a number of goals with page navigation, but the big ones, in rough order, are:
* 'Discoverability'. How hard is it for someone who's never visited a SmugMug page (say, a new client or your grandma) to navigate to the next page? The prior iteration scored very poorly on this metric, and this one is almost off the charts. Everyone figures it out instantly.
* Doesn't get lost below the fold. Since gallery descriptions, custom headers, etc, are out of our control, we have to figure out how to make sure the page navigation elements don't get lost when pushed down below the "ideal".
* Doesn't push other things below the fold. Placing page navigation somewhere above the thumbnails pushes too many other important things (like the photos!) below the threshold.
* Intuitive behavior. Clicking on thumbnails causes big photos to appear. Clicking on these "special" navigation thumbnails still causes the big photos to appear - it just also happens to load a new set of thumbnails. This turns out to be very intuitive and doesn't jar the user out of the browsing experience.
* Less clutter. We want to emphasize photos, not SmugMug's UI. This removes some clutter that was previously on the page, in favor of more photos.
* Same high # of photos per page. We didn't have to sacrifice a row of thumbnails or some other important page component to solve the problem. Those thumbnails are now just doing double-duty - they both turn the page and load the new photo.
Again, this is a work in progress, so we welcome your feedback about the ways this works for you, the ways it doesn't, and any suggestions for tweaks and improvements.
Psychologically, we're wired to "fear change", so please do take some time to play with it, internalize how it feels, test it on your friends & family (maybe even clients?), try it on your iPad and your mobile phone, etc.
Can you make sure that your testers include tests of galleries where there are more than 1 line of description?
--- Denise
I hope this goes without saying, but we do test this scenario. It's not actually that common, so we do prioritize optimizing the display for the most common case, which is a short description, but we pay attention to longer ones and balance as we can.
Denise, you keep using this term, and during a pre-Alpha test like this, it really causes our developers to just recoil from the rest of your post, great ideas and all.
We view this as a partnership, where we're building a new product together with you. Saying "that's unacceptable" rather than "I'd really prefer it like" sets the tone that you're not really interested in working with us as we incorporate your feedback, which I *know* isn't true since you've been here a long time and I know you.
But not all SmugMug employees (or customers) know you, and this sort of language is a sure fire way to get them to *not* listen to what you have to say.
I'm hoping you'll take this the right way. I love and value your feedback, and want the rest of the company to feel the same way.
I hope this goes without saying, but we do test this scenario. It's not actually that common, so we do prioritize optimizing the display for the most common case, which is a short description, but we pay attention to longer ones and balance as we can.
Thanks.
Part of my concern is due to the fact that I have created my own breadcrumb replacement for a number of reasons: 1) I'm using custom html-only galleries instead of smug category subcatory screens because I wanted much larger thumbs than are available, 2) because the current gallery structure doesn't support the levels I need to represent my galleries in a structure that makes sense, and 3) because I want subcategories and galleries intermixed on the gallery screens. Because of this I need a minimum of 2 lines of description - one for the gallery title, and one for the breadcrumb replacement. I usually have a 3rd descriptive line as well.
While I'd be happy to go back to using the smug breadcrumb and mnimize my use of the description, I won't be able to do that without changes beyond the gallery style that you've shown us so far.
What I've seen so far puts the paging controls below the visible browser window - and I'd like them to be readily visible. I did discover that I can suppress the beginning of the breadcrumb and keep the larger font title. That means that I can cut my description down by 1 line; maybe that will be enough to bring the paging controls back to a visible level.
Denise, you keep using this term, and during a pre-Alpha test like this, it really causes our developers to just recoil from the rest of your post, great ideas and all.
We view this as a partnership, where we're building a new product together with you. Saying "that's unacceptable" rather than "I'd really prefer it like" sets the tone that you're not really interested in working with us as we incorporate your feedback, which I *know* isn't true since you've been here a long time and I know you.
But not all SmugMug employees (or customers) know you, and this sort of language is a sure fire way to get them to *not* listen to what you have to say.
I'm hoping you'll take this the right way. I love and value your feedback, and want the rest of the company to feel the same way.
Thanks for the feedback.
I'm really not trying to get under anyone's skin and I am very interested in working with you. I've just been extremely frustrated by the lack of feedback to suggestions and questions. I know that you need to balance answering questions with your development effort; answering questions all day means no new or changed functionality. Look at it from the other side though; you provided a look at a changed smug and you gave us a place to submit comments and feedback. I would have appreciated some interim feedback. And honestly, your quoting a single word out of context wasn't fair to me.
I understand that my site isn't the norm and I'm trying to understand how I can maintain the look & feel in the new world. I do like the new look, but I am concerned with things like paging controls being below the visible page. I've watched too many inexperienced computer users not know how to get to the next page, or not realize that they can scroll.
* Doesn't get lost below the fold. Since gallery descriptions, custom headers, etc, are out of our control, we have to figure out how to make sure the page navigation elements don't get lost when pushed down below the "ideal".
* Doesn't push other things below the fold. Placing page navigation somewhere above the thumbnails pushes too many other important things (like the photos!) below the threshold.
* Intuitive behavior. Clicking on thumbnails causes big photos to appear. Clicking on these "special" navigation thumbnails still causes the big photos to appear - it just also happens to load a new set of thumbnails. This turns out to be very intuitive and doesn't jar the user out of the browsing experience.
* Same high # of photos per page. We didn't have to sacrifice a row of thumbnails or some other important page component to solve the problem. Those thumbnails are now just doing double-duty - they both turn the page and load the new photo.
Clicking on the arrow on a thumb is a very good and intuitive feature! A keeper for sure.
In the previous release, there was a "more" link to show the whole gallery description. This was a good beginning. In this release, the description is viewable which is great but which also makes that the photos get partly lost below the fold in case the description contains lots of lines. I wonder if it wouldn't be more convenient to have a toggle link reading "more" and "less" (resulting in the descriptions to fold out and fold in). Not every visitor is interested in reading the descriptions I found out... For some people it matters, for others (and I think for most people) it's still the photos that count first and most. That's why I think that foldable descriptions might be more convenient to make sure the photos remain viewable.
I'll have to find out what the average visitor thinks about the bullets below the thumbs, indicating the pages. At first I wondered what the bullets stand for, I did not link them to the pages but after hovering over a bullet it became clear. That's because I was investigating my galleries. A visitor is not likely to investigate a page to find out what the bullets stand for. I have some mixed feelings about these bullets even if they look very clean.
I noticed that in some galleries with lots of photos, the bullets are replaced by the page # which is more clear. Perhaps all pages should have such a more obvious notification instead of the bullets.
* Intuitive behavior. Clicking on thumbnails causes big photos to appear. Clicking on these "special" navigation thumbnails still causes the big photos to appear - it just also happens to load a new set of thumbnails. This turns out to be very intuitive and doesn't jar the user out of the browsing experience.
Ok so you've sold me on this pagination (including page bullets), but don't make the pageturner square if I have originals set. If that's intended as a way to highlight that functionality, it's not necessary, the dimmed-ness and white arrow do the trick.
Ok so you've sold me on this pagination (including page bullets), but don't make the pageturner square if I have originals set. If that's intended as a way to highlight that functionality, it's not necessary, the dimmed-ness and white arrow do the trick.
Malte
Great feedback. Totally agree. This is something that was brought up internally already, and it's great to see some customer validation.
I don't think there is any way to control the fold because of the many
different header/banner sizes including a navbar which will push the page
down. I'm assuming you all are going to allow adding a banner and nav to
the header, right?
So designing it so the photos show above the fold just doesn't seem
efficient which could be a very small area with large headers. I've seen
huge banners.
Sizing the photo area to fill window view after scrolling is what I think is
important. I've also noticed a lot of folks do not look under the photos to
even see the caption, let alone the page/photo navs. That's why I think a
top nav is also important like we have now.
I would rather all gallery thumbs be small so they have to click them to see
the main photo. Too many just browse the thumbs. Plus you get a lot
more thumbs per page. A long as they are small and many the nav thumb
at each end would work great.
BTW, the last few galleries created show no print button in the new style?
Great feedback. Totally agree. This is something that was brought up internally already, and it's great to see some customer validation.
Well then, here's some more. I don't like my photos randomly cropped so I think these should follow the gallery pref.
Something that is still missing is nav for the images. There is no clean way to go from image to image without having to move the mouse, as there is in lightbox view or in the standard gallery view as it exists now. I've watched over the shoulder of a few people now and most go right to the "image x of y" navigation to flip through the images. I've mentioned this before IIRC... if you're going to insist on leaving these elements out of the default page layout, please give us an easy option(e.g. a checkbox in gallery settings or a global option) to enable these.
I consider myself to be at sort of the opposite end of the spectrum from most people giving feedback. I do want to do some customization of my site, but mostly in the form of a header. I would like for the default to implement current functionality as seen in the SmugMug layout, just in a cleaner fashion. So far it looks good to me except for the above and the caption issue that has been mentioned above by many people.
Sorry, but I HATE the navigation on the new version. On my laptop in my galleries, the page number, image number, caption, etc are all below the fold. Navigating to the next page by clicking a thumbnail is totally non-intuitive. What's wrong with the way it works in the old version? Page navigation with the page number, image navigation with the image number, etc. I feel like you're willing to completely sacrifice functionality for looks.
My earlier complaint was that we can't edit gallery descriptions, captions, or keywords in place. Are you really planning to keep it this way? Editing captions/keywords covers the image. Why would you do that? The slideshow button is in a random spot, the download and info buttons are just hanging out in the middle of nowhere, and I can't tell that a gallery has multiple pages without scrolling.
I do like what you've done to the keywords though. And thanks for bringing back "Arrange Photos."
I'm not one to freak out about upcoming changes in their early stages. But I really hope you guys think this one through. Overall I like the look, but I can't stand the functionality. I feel like this design is going to slow me down significantly, even after I get used to it. And if the navigation doesn't change, I think I'm going to have a lot of confused visitors.
Comments
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Recent posts in this thread should be of interest to anyone here http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1636437#post1636437
Caroline
www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+
[/URL]
Thanks, that tells me a lot. I'm still looking forward to the new site but just hoping that it won't be a year or something before we actually get to see it...
I can tell that many here have never taken part in beta testing or used pre-release products. Before writing off a product based solely on a preview that's months away from release-candidacy, understand that very dramatic changes can happen in that time. Give them a chance to listen to your (hopefully) calm, constructive feedback. I'm actually rather surprised at being granted this early of a preview; a testament to where their focus truly is.
Looking forward to seeing what comes along!
Christopher Nowlan Photography - http://photos.christophernowlan.com/
Christopher Nowlan (Main/Blog) - http://christophernowlan.com/
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
However, I think this '2.0' is really necessary, and Smugmug is at least on the right direction. The 'base' product Smugmug offers now is seriously dated. Granted, there are 'older' designs out there still, but Smugmug has indeed fallen behind. I was in fact very worried that Smugmug would become content and stop innovating. I am very glad Smugmug is revamping the underlying design and architecture to join 2011!
Customization stuff aside, I wouldn't call the new design radical in anyway. The loading speed is much improved, but imho, the UI is still not streamlined enough. UI elements are still sticking out too much. Just like Chrome (the browser), I hope Smugmug further 'condenses' things. The whole section below the main photo is still a mess and taking up way too much space. Those 'bubbles' around the UI elements are still very dated.
I for one don't think it's necessary to see so many thumbnails. I would love to see that space to be better used. There's too much empty space in the header area as well.... also, I dont like the pop up EXIF. anything pop up just does not feel 'integrated'.
Overall though, certainly in the right direction... and I think Smugmug cannot delay this any longer... a much needed revamp!
Cheers,
Malte
page because of the added page nav thumbs.
All navigation is still below the window and can not be seen without scrolling.
The prints button is still the ugliest thing I've every seen.
The html is now working in the descriptions but it doesn't seem to be
picking any formatting from the html, at least for tables. Seems the print
button is hogging the space on the right. Not a good place for it.
So far I see nothing with this new, whatever you call it, style that's better
then the old style other then maybe the engine.
I do not see a notLoggedIn class on the page. This is used a lot.
.notLoggedIn .sm-album-16977720 #sm-page-breadcrumb,
.notLoggedIn .sm-album-16977720 #sm-page-header {display:none;}
My Website index | My Blog
The paging controls are below the visible space in the browser window, forcing scrolling. This is very poor design. I know, that's a bit blunt, but the behavior is unacceptable.
A line of dots to switch pages is pretty but not recognizeable as paging controls. Give me the option to show text in addition to the dots.
I want the paging controls above the photos so it doesn't have a chance of scrolling off of the page. I said this in my feedback before, and I know I'm not the only person who expressed this desire / concern.
There need to be choices of colors for the buy button. While I want it to be noticed, the bright colors and the size are not acceptable. You've made it easy to find the buy button to purchase photos but you've made it difficult to scroll through the gallery.
Again - I want the ability to place all of the paging controls above the thumbs and photos. Make it an option - for people who want cleaner but harder to navigate sites, the controls can remain off the bottom of the page. For those of us who want to make it easy on our viewers, the controls can be moved above the photos.
Is anyone listening?
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Like I said, I like how I don't have to scroll down. That bar stops just at the bottom of my window! I understand this will probably change when I put in my customizations, but I like the way it is.
The Buy button is, well, that old shade of SM green. I'd make the left side a different color, but I understand if you want to use SM's shade of green.
HTML is coming along nicely. I see that the "no photos" box is there, whereas it isn't in the old design. Also, the new design doesn't use the whole page... items which should be centered are a little to the left.
I don't like the unlisted gallery icon when I'm logged out. I don't want visitors seeing that.
I love the new no-underline links!
Overall, you guys are doing very well. Keep up the good work!
they want to look pretty. I have a 24" inch and the nav stuff is below the
window, think how every laptop will look.
My Website index | My Blog
All of my descriptions contain at least 2 lines. Some contain more.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
Allen, I value your feedback a great deal, but it doesn't help me want to pay attention when you just invent facts to support your case.
Our test suite includes mobile phones, tablets, laptops ranging from 11" to 17", and desktops with a wide range of displays. Our target resolution is 1024x768, with 1280x800 and similar sizes a close second.
BTW, I'm not aware of anyone at SmugMug with a display >30".
I'd like to see the slideshow button next to and with the same prominence as the buy button. Both should be immediately above the large photo in smugmug style. The slideshow button should be a little more prominent than it is now and the buy button a little less prominent than it's current "in your face" look". (the current buy button pulls the eye away from the large photo - I want my photos highlighted, not a button!)
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
We continue to listen and iterate. We'd especially love people to spend a few days playing with and getting used to the new page navigation design to see how it sits with you after use.
We've been designing, building, and testing hundreds of variations on the page navigation concept, and this is the one we like best so far. I expect there will be more iterations as we incorporate more feedback and testing.
We have a number of goals with page navigation, but the big ones, in rough order, are:
* 'Discoverability'. How hard is it for someone who's never visited a SmugMug page (say, a new client or your grandma) to navigate to the next page? The prior iteration scored very poorly on this metric, and this one is almost off the charts. Everyone figures it out instantly.
* Doesn't get lost below the fold. Since gallery descriptions, custom headers, etc, are out of our control, we have to figure out how to make sure the page navigation elements don't get lost when pushed down below the "ideal".
* Doesn't push other things below the fold. Placing page navigation somewhere above the thumbnails pushes too many other important things (like the photos!) below the threshold.
* Intuitive behavior. Clicking on thumbnails causes big photos to appear. Clicking on these "special" navigation thumbnails still causes the big photos to appear - it just also happens to load a new set of thumbnails. This turns out to be very intuitive and doesn't jar the user out of the browsing experience.
* Less clutter. We want to emphasize photos, not SmugMug's UI. This removes some clutter that was previously on the page, in favor of more photos.
* Same high # of photos per page. We didn't have to sacrifice a row of thumbnails or some other important page component to solve the problem. Those thumbnails are now just doing double-duty - they both turn the page and load the new photo.
Again, this is a work in progress, so we welcome your feedback about the ways this works for you, the ways it doesn't, and any suggestions for tweaks and improvements.
Psychologically, we're wired to "fear change", so please do take some time to play with it, internalize how it feels, test it on your friends & family (maybe even clients?), try it on your iPad and your mobile phone, etc.
Thanks!
I hope this goes without saying, but we do test this scenario. It's not actually that common, so we do prioritize optimizing the display for the most common case, which is a short description, but we pay attention to longer ones and balance as we can.
Denise, you keep using this term, and during a pre-Alpha test like this, it really causes our developers to just recoil from the rest of your post, great ideas and all.
We view this as a partnership, where we're building a new product together with you. Saying "that's unacceptable" rather than "I'd really prefer it like" sets the tone that you're not really interested in working with us as we incorporate your feedback, which I *know* isn't true since you've been here a long time and I know you.
But not all SmugMug employees (or customers) know you, and this sort of language is a sure fire way to get them to *not* listen to what you have to say.
I'm hoping you'll take this the right way. I love and value your feedback, and want the rest of the company to feel the same way.
Part of my concern is due to the fact that I have created my own breadcrumb replacement for a number of reasons: 1) I'm using custom html-only galleries instead of smug category subcatory screens because I wanted much larger thumbs than are available, 2) because the current gallery structure doesn't support the levels I need to represent my galleries in a structure that makes sense, and 3) because I want subcategories and galleries intermixed on the gallery screens. Because of this I need a minimum of 2 lines of description - one for the gallery title, and one for the breadcrumb replacement. I usually have a 3rd descriptive line as well.
While I'd be happy to go back to using the smug breadcrumb and mnimize my use of the description, I won't be able to do that without changes beyond the gallery style that you've shown us so far.
What I've seen so far puts the paging controls below the visible browser window - and I'd like them to be readily visible. I did discover that I can suppress the beginning of the breadcrumb and keep the larger font title. That means that I can cut my description down by 1 line; maybe that will be enough to bring the paging controls back to a visible level. Thanks for the feedback.
I'm really not trying to get under anyone's skin and I am very interested in working with you. I've just been extremely frustrated by the lack of feedback to suggestions and questions. I know that you need to balance answering questions with your development effort; answering questions all day means no new or changed functionality. Look at it from the other side though; you provided a look at a changed smug and you gave us a place to submit comments and feedback. I would have appreciated some interim feedback. And honestly, your quoting a single word out of context wasn't fair to me.
I understand that my site isn't the norm and I'm trying to understand how I can maintain the look & feel in the new world. I do like the new look, but I am concerned with things like paging controls being below the visible page. I've watched too many inexperienced computer users not know how to get to the next page, or not realize that they can scroll.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
In the previous release, there was a "more" link to show the whole gallery description. This was a good beginning. In this release, the description is viewable which is great but which also makes that the photos get partly lost below the fold in case the description contains lots of lines. I wonder if it wouldn't be more convenient to have a toggle link reading "more" and "less" (resulting in the descriptions to fold out and fold in). Not every visitor is interested in reading the descriptions I found out... For some people it matters, for others (and I think for most people) it's still the photos that count first and most. That's why I think that foldable descriptions might be more convenient to make sure the photos remain viewable.
I'll have to find out what the average visitor thinks about the bullets below the thumbs, indicating the pages. At first I wondered what the bullets stand for, I did not link them to the pages but after hovering over a bullet it became clear. That's because I was investigating my galleries. A visitor is not likely to investigate a page to find out what the bullets stand for. I have some mixed feelings about these bullets even if they look very clean.
I noticed that in some galleries with lots of photos, the bullets are replaced by the page # which is more clear. Perhaps all pages should have such a more obvious notification instead of the bullets.
Luc
Ok so you've sold me on this pagination (including page bullets), but don't make the pageturner square if I have originals set. If that's intended as a way to highlight that functionality, it's not necessary, the dimmed-ness and white arrow do the trick.
Malte
Great feedback. Totally agree. This is something that was brought up internally already, and it's great to see some customer validation.
different header/banner sizes including a navbar which will push the page
down. I'm assuming you all are going to allow adding a banner and nav to
the header, right?
So designing it so the photos show above the fold just doesn't seem
efficient which could be a very small area with large headers. I've seen
huge banners.
Sizing the photo area to fill window view after scrolling is what I think is
important. I've also noticed a lot of folks do not look under the photos to
even see the caption, let alone the page/photo navs. That's why I think a
top nav is also important like we have now.
I would rather all gallery thumbs be small so they have to click them to see
the main photo. Too many just browse the thumbs. Plus you get a lot
more thumbs per page. A long as they are small and many the nav thumb
at each end would work great.
BTW, the last few galleries created show no print button in the new style?
My Website index | My Blog
Well then, here's some more.
Something that is still missing is nav for the images. There is no clean way to go from image to image without having to move the mouse, as there is in lightbox view or in the standard gallery view as it exists now. I've watched over the shoulder of a few people now and most go right to the "image x of y" navigation to flip through the images. I've mentioned this before IIRC... if you're going to insist on leaving these elements out of the default page layout, please give us an easy option(e.g. a checkbox in gallery settings or a global option) to enable these.
I consider myself to be at sort of the opposite end of the spectrum from most people giving feedback. I do want to do some customization of my site, but mostly in the form of a header. I would like for the default to implement current functionality as seen in the SmugMug layout, just in a cleaner fashion. So far it looks good to me except for the above and the caption issue that has been mentioned above by many people.
My earlier complaint was that we can't edit gallery descriptions, captions, or keywords in place. Are you really planning to keep it this way? Editing captions/keywords covers the image. Why would you do that? The slideshow button is in a random spot, the download and info buttons are just hanging out in the middle of nowhere, and I can't tell that a gallery has multiple pages without scrolling.
I do like what you've done to the keywords though. And thanks for bringing back "Arrange Photos."
I'm not one to freak out about upcoming changes in their early stages. But I really hope you guys think this one through. Overall I like the look, but I can't stand the functionality. I feel like this design is going to slow me down significantly, even after I get used to it. And if the navigation doesn't change, I think I'm going to have a lot of confused visitors.
Dave