My first thought when I first read of the new design initiative was one of trepidation. However, after reading John's comments here and viewing the current changes, I've come back down to a much more comfortable level. It's exciting to see and I look forward to this new layout going forward. Thanks to SM for taking this approach and to John for the extensive amount of time he spends for all of us. Of course there are the others who help with customizing as well (Allen, Denise, et al). It does not go unnoticed.
...As part of improving SEO, some fields that we could previously put raw HTML into will be restricted to their originally intended text usage so that text can be reliably used in SEO (gallery descriptions, in particular) rather than pieces of customization code showing up on Google and being the primary thing your gallery gets indexed by.
I'm quoting jfriend for context here, but this question is really targeted at SmugMug.
The inability to place HTML in a gallery description will totally break my site. I've made comments on this here and here, with no answers or comments so far.
Once again:
I use CSS & HTML in my gallery descriptions to build a replacement for the smug breadcrumb.
I use CSS & HTML in html-only galleries that are a replacement for smug's category and subcategory pages.
Why? There are three main reasons:
The thumbnails are too small. 100x100 and 150x150 are both ridiculously small and not a good way to entice viewers to click on a gallery. My thumbs are currently 250x250, and I like that size. I can live with 225x225, and I might be willing to compromise at 200x200, but anything smaller is really unacceptable. I've thrown together a gallery showing examples of thumb sizes ranging from 250x250 down to 150x150 - http://www.denisegoldberg.com/Other/experiment-again/7409619_Tz63P.
On a category or subcategory page (or the equivalent in the new world), I need galleries and subcategories to be intermixed. I don't want all of the subcategories together and all of the galleries together. Explanation and link to an example can be seen in this post.
In order to switch back to standard smug screens I need more levels than are currently available. Yes, I know you're already working on this, and yes, I know, the new design is likely separated from this.
These customizations were all done to get around shortcomings in the smug offering. I'd be delighted if my needs were met by standard presentations.
Until all of these are available I'm going to have a hard time switching back to standard smug category and subcategory screens. Is there any chance of smug meeting my needs?
Beyond this, I will always need the ability to include <a href= statements in my gallery descriptions to link to corresponding blog entries, or possibly to other related galleries. Unless of course you intend to provide another space in the gallery to add these links...
Is it possible to get a response from a smug representative? If you don't want to answer here I'm happy to have a discussion via email or phone.
...As part of improving SEO, some fields that we could previously put raw HTML into will be restricted to their originally intended text usage so that text can be reliably used in SEO (gallery descriptions, in particular) rather than pieces of customization code showing up on Google and being the primary thing your gallery gets indexed by.
I agree with Denise on this, it will totally break my site if html is not allowed
in descriptions and captions. I'm mainly referring to photo galleries not info
pages.
"As part of improving SEO" ... I couldn't care less about this, why screw everyone for the sake of Pros. :pissed
I'm quoting jfriend for context here, but this question is really targeted at SmugMug.
The inability to place HTML in a gallery description will totally break my site. I've made comments on this here and here, with no answers or comments so far.
Once again:
I use CSS & HTML in my gallery descriptions to build a replacement for the smug breadcrumb.
I use CSS & HTML in html-only galleries that are a replacement for smug's category and subcategory pages.
Why? There are three main reasons:
The thumbnails are too small. 100x100 and 150x150 are both ridiculously small and not a good way to entice viewers to click on a gallery. My thumbs are currently 250x250, and I like that size. I can live with 225x225, and I might be willing to compromise at 200x200, but anything smaller is really unacceptable. I've thrown together a gallery showing examples of thumb sizes ranging from 250x250 down to 150x150 - http://www.denisegoldberg.com/Other/experiment-again/7409619_Tz63P.
On a category or subcategory page (or the equivalent in the new world), I need galleries and subcategories to be intermixed. I don't want all of the subcategories together and all of the galleries together. Explanation and link to an example can be seen in this post.
In order to switch back to standard smug screens I need more levels than are currently available. Yes, I know you're already working on this, and yes, I know, the new design is likely separated from this.
These customizations were all done to get around shortcomings in the smug offering. I'd be delighted if my needs were met by standard presentations.
Until all of these are available I'm going to have a hard time switching back to standard smug category and subcategory screens. Is there any chance of smug meeting my needs?
Beyond this, I will always need the ability to include <a href= statements in my gallery descriptions to link to corresponding blog entries, or possibly to other related galleries. Unless of course you intend to provide another space in the gallery to add these links...
Is it possible to get a response from a smug representative? If you don't want to answer here I'm happy to have a discussion via email or phone.
--- Denise
Denise and Allen, if you read the bullet point right under the one Denise quoted from my post, there is an intention to support what you're doing. I don't think this was originally their plan, but I think they've now seen enough creative, valuable uses of HTML above a gallery that they want to allow it.
For reasons I don't understand, Smugmug wouldn't say how they were going to do it, but it's my opinion that a likely way to meet both goals (a clean description for display on category pages and in SEO and allow full HTML for creative customizers) is to add another field below the description that can have arbitrary HTML. You could then decide to use one or both of those fields depending upon what you were trying to accomplish. To be clear here, Smugmug did not say this is what they are going to do (perhaps they have a different solution in mind), it just seems to me to be a logical solution to all party's needs.
If html isn't allowed in my gallery descriptions and captions then dozens if not hundreds of them will be broken. I totally agree with Denise and Allen on this, particularly Allen's comment:-
"As part of improving SEO" ... I couldn't care less about this, why screw everyone for the sake of Pros."
I'm also curious about the comment about "pieces of customization code showing up on Google and being the primary thing your gallery gets indexed by" - If never seen this nor has it been a problem for me.
My frustration with the situation is increased by the lack of response from Smugmug to these issues. It seems that John is a lone voice on this - WHY?
For a company that prides itself on it's customer service why are you letting us down now?
Denise and Allen, if you read the bullet point right under the one Denise quoted from my post, there is an intention to support what you're doing. I don't think this was originally their plan, but I think they've now seen enough creative, valuable uses of HTML above a gallery that they want to allow it.
For reasons I don't understand, Smugmug wouldn't say how they were going to do it....
Thanks for the reply John. That's good to hear - but I need to see the implementation.
I really would like to see a response from smug. Responses and comments from smug have been sorely lacking in all three new design threads.
The thing is, if I continue building my own breadcrumb - and I have seen nothing in the plans that would allow me to revert to the standard smug designs, I need the ability to place HTML above the gallery description since that is where I want my breadcrumb replacement. And since I want to link to relevant posts in my blog, I also need the ability to place HTML below (or as the last line of) the gallery description. One container is enough. Two is not enough if the top description box can't contain HTML.
Thanks for the reply John. That's good to hear - but I need to see the implementation.
I really would like to see a response from smug. Responses and comments from smug have been sorely lacking in all three new design threads.
The thing is, if I continue building my own breadcrumb - and I have seen nothing in the plans that would allow me to revert to the standard smug designs, I need the ability to place HTML above the gallery description since that is where I want my breadcrumb replacement. And since I want to link to relevant posts in my blog, I also need the ability to place HTML below (or as the last line of) the gallery description. One container is enough. Two is not enough if the top description box can't contain HTML.
SmugMug - please, how about some response here?
--- Denise
If there are two and the bottom can contain HTML, you can always skip or hide the top one and have something just like you have today.
If there are two and the bottom can contain HTML, you can always skip or hide the top one and have something just like you have today.
Ah, but if the top plays into SEO and the bottom box doesn't, that doesn't work too well.
If they are both treated equally with respect to SEO then I have no problem using the botton box. And frankly I can't imagine how the bottom box wouldn't play equally into SEO, seems like it should have the same weight as the top box assuming that I don't use the top box. So hopefully I won't have a problem converting to the new world.
If smug would fix the presentation (thumb size, mixed galleries and subcategories, deeper folder structure) then I could actually use standard screens. I'm not holding my breath on that one though.
And I'm with Caroline on this - I haven't seen where having HTML in my description is hurting me. Maybe it's because the HTML is just <a href= links, but what shows on google is the text, not the HTML.
I'm not trying to be difficult, and I really appreciate your insight. I just don't understand why smug hasn't seen fit to answer these questions. I asked about this when they first posted the sneak peak thread. It became very clear almost immediately that they were being very selective about the questions they chose to answer.
Denise, we spent a lot of time this week on all of the feedback provided, and also in discussions with John Friend and some other folks as well at HQ. I can promise you we're working on all of this feedback. Everyone involved in the work we're doing here has read and seen all of your (and everyone's) postings. Please allow us some more time to digest all of this, to make more improvements, and to reply back to these feedback threads, which we will do. Thanks everyone for your input, and keep it coming.
Denise, we spent a lot of time this week on all of the feedback provided, and also in discussions with John Friend and some other folks as well at HQ. I can promise you we're working on all of this feedback. Everyone involved in the work we're doing here has read and seen all of your (and everyone's) postings. Please allow us some more time to digest all of this, to make more improvements, and to reply back to these feedback threads, which we will do.
Thanks Andy.
I know you are in competitive industry and you can't share all of your plans, but it's been more than a bit disconcerting to see essentially no response to questions. And the implication from the beginning that we wouldn't be able to continue to use HTML in galleries created quite a bit of consternation - and not just with me. As far as I'm concerned that was a supported use of the gallery description per your own customization FAQ.
Denise, we spent a lot of time this week on all of the feedback provided, and also in discussions with John Friend and some other folks as well at HQ. I can promise you we're working on all of this feedback. Everyone involved in the work we're doing here has read and seen all of your (and everyone's) postings. Please allow us some more time to digest all of this, to make more improvements, and to reply back to these feedback threads, which we will do. Thanks everyone for your input, and keep it coming.
Andy,
Your response to Denise's comment is appreciated but getting it has been like pulling teeth
At least a regular acknowledgement from Smugmug would go someway to allaying the concern felt here.
Caroline
I have replied to you in numerous places - please - do give us some time. We do promise that we're reading everything, and we're in the middle of hard work at SmugMug on the very things you all are bringing up. We promise to update when we have news.
I have replied to you in numerous places - please - do give us some time. We do promise that we're reading everything, and we're in the middle of hard work at SmugMug on the very things you all are bringing up. We promise to update when we have news.
Thank you every so much for your patience.
I suggest that everyone take a deep breath and not worry so much. Rather than panic about your current code, simply express the features you want that you are using custom HTML and CSS to create. Chances are very good that they've already thought of it, and if they haven't, this is your chance to ask for it. Wouldn't it be nice to easily customize through a nice UI instead of having to do all the custom coding in the gallery description box?
If you look at some of the competitors popping up, Smugmug does appear to need a significant overhaul. So this news is very exciting to me.
Smugmug is one of the most responsive, hands-on, easy access sites I've ever encountered on the web. Let's not take that for granted. Give them time to respond to your concerns -- we have plenty of time to adjust to these improvements!
Smugmug is one of the most responsive, hands-on, easy access sites I've ever encountered on the web. Let's not take that for granted. Give them time to respond to your concerns -- we have plenty of time to adjust to these improvements!
I don't think anyone doubts that. But simple, regular acknowledgments of the ideas in this thread is all that it would take to let people know their ideas aren't falling on deaf ears.
I suggest that everyone take a deep breath and not worry so much. Rather than panic about your current code, simply express the features you want that you are using custom HTML and CSS to create. Chances are very good that they've already thought of it, and if they haven't, this is your chance to ask for it. Wouldn't it be nice to easily customize through a nice UI instead of having to do all the custom coding in the gallery description box?
If you look at some of the competitors popping up, Smugmug does appear to need a significant overhaul. So this news is very exciting to me.
Smugmug is one of the most responsive, hands-on, easy access sites I've ever encountered on the web. Let's not take that for granted. Give them time to respond to your concerns -- we have plenty of time to adjust to these improvements!
Fully agree! Some people seem to react so over-stressed. It's still a very early preview of a long-term project and everything is already covered in SmugMug's answers in different threads. Reading between the lines, the outcome will be fabulous (though, as usual, there will be people who will not be satisfied -- that's life).
Denise, we spent a lot of time this week on all of the feedback provided, and also in discussions with John Friend and some other folks as well at HQ. I can promise you we're working on all of this feedback. Everyone involved in the work we're doing here has read and seen all of your (and everyone's) postings. Please allow us some more time to digest all of this, to make more improvements, and to reply back to these feedback threads, which we will do. Thanks everyone for your input, and keep it coming.
No feedback yet... and it's been two weeks. You say that you are working on this and I can understand if development is ongoing and there isn't any new demo to share, but why can't there be some feedback?
Can you at least tell me if I will be able to use HTML in a box at the head of my galleries (as jfriend noted above) given that it's been stated that we won't be able to use HTML in the gallery description? To go along with that, assuming that you won't allow HTML in the description, I will need to totally suppress that box and I will need the as-yet-unnamed box to feed into search engines for SEO, no hiding.
I have discovered, by accident, that some of the customisation I use to format my image captions is being interpreted correctly in the new design for some 'SmugMug' galleries. This does not occur in normal gallery templates, but does for some images in 'galleries' of keyword results. I don't yet know why only some images in keyword galleries display this customisation.
Specifically, site-wide caption font colour settings in my CSS and as over-ridden by HTML in individual captions is working for some captions for these galleries, which is pleasing and promising for the ongoing development of the new design. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" >
Please move the buy button out of the gallery description. It drastically
interferes with design, we need full gallery width. Surely there's somewhere
else to place it. I would suggest the right end of .sm-breadcrumb or far right
of slideshow.
Also where is the "Map This" button going to reside?
Edit: Just noticed that turning off printing the width of the content in
the description does not change. The area for the buy button is still there
and the content is limited to about 75% of the description box.
I want to customize my site but am not capable of doing it myself. Was just about to commit to one of the smugmug partners for a skin. Now I don't know if I should since it will have to be adjusted once the changes take place. I feel like I am between a rock and a hard place because I desperately need a better look. Advice?
I want to customize my site but am not capable of doing it myself. Was just about to commit to one of the smugmug partners for a skin. Now I don't know if I should since it will have to be adjusted once the changes take place. I feel like I am between a rock and a hard place because I desperately need a better look. Advice?
Hey Gabby58,
It is a really good question. We are strategizing with the certified customization companies on how best to handle situations as you describe. We don't have any specifics to talk about publicly yet but there will be a path to migrate and a fee associated with it. Who pays and how much that will cost, are the key points in our discussion.
If you want to DM me your budget and thoughts, I can introduce you to directly to some that fit your needs and style.
No feedback yet... and it's been two weeks. You say that you are working on this and I can understand if development is ongoing and there isn't any new demo to share, but why can't there be some feedback?
Can you at least tell me if I will be able to use HTML in a box at the head of my galleries (as jfriend noted above) given that it's been stated that we won't be able to use HTML in the gallery description? To go along with that, assuming that you won't allow HTML in the description, I will need to totally suppress that box and I will need the as-yet-unnamed box to feed into search engines for SEO, no hiding.
--- Denise
I have to agree with Denise. We really need to be able to use HTML in the galleries description box. My site design depends heavily on that - most of my pages use HTML in the description box. I don't want my site breaking down due to these new features. And I really don't want to have to spend hours redesigning my site for these 'new features'. Why not just add these features and not take away the existing ones? I am very happy with the way my site is now and would not want any of the design broken.
Self Fulfilling print orders
I'm sure I am not the only one with this question, and I know that the new smugmug release is all of 2 days old.
I have customized all of my galleries so that print orders flow though paypal, so that I can self fulfill the orders. I am also aware that there is javascript in this customization and that this new release does not support javascript.
Is anyone aware of an html script that will pull in the gallery name (or even the gallery number) and the photo number so that I can continue to self fulfill orders? I was able to create a paypal button have that work, but I am missing the photo information.
I'm sure I am not the only one with this question, and I know that the new smugmug release is all of 2 days old.
I have customized all of my galleries so that print orders flow though paypal, so that I can self fulfill the orders. I am also aware that there is javascript in this customization and that this new release does not support javascript.
Is anyone aware of an html script that will pull in the gallery name (or even the gallery number) and the photo number so that I can continue to self fulfill orders? I was able to create a paypal button have that work, but I am missing the photo information.
Thanks for the assistance.
Barry
I am in the same situation - as far as I can tell we're screwed. The SUpport Heroes say that because HTML customisation is available it's going to be fine, but they seem wilfully ignorant of the fact that the paypal integrations use Javascript.
I am in the same situation - as far as I can tell we're screwed. The SUpport Heroes say that because HTML customisation is available it's going to be fine, but they seem wilfully ignorant of the fact that the paypal integrations use Javascript.
Cheers - N
I agree. We can't be the only 2 users that are doing this. I have had 2 emails so far with the Heroes..Neither have addressed the issue of self-fulfilling orders. A straight answer would be helpful.
I may start look at the competition.
Comments
-Danny
dannyberryphotography.com
Facebook
The inability to place HTML in a gallery description will totally break my site. I've made comments on this here and here, with no answers or comments so far.
Once again:
- I use CSS & HTML in my gallery descriptions to build a replacement for the smug breadcrumb.
- I use CSS & HTML in html-only galleries that are a replacement for smug's category and subcategory pages.
Why? There are three main reasons:- The thumbnails are too small. 100x100 and 150x150 are both ridiculously small and not a good way to entice viewers to click on a gallery. My thumbs are currently 250x250, and I like that size. I can live with 225x225, and I might be willing to compromise at 200x200, but anything smaller is really unacceptable. I've thrown together a gallery showing examples of thumb sizes ranging from 250x250 down to 150x150 - http://www.denisegoldberg.com/Other/experiment-again/7409619_Tz63P.
- On a category or subcategory page (or the equivalent in the new world), I need galleries and subcategories to be intermixed. I don't want all of the subcategories together and all of the galleries together. Explanation and link to an example can be seen in this post.
- In order to switch back to standard smug screens I need more levels than are currently available. Yes, I know you're already working on this, and yes, I know, the new design is likely separated from this.
These customizations were all done to get around shortcomings in the smug offering. I'd be delighted if my needs were met by standard presentations.Until all of these are available I'm going to have a hard time switching back to standard smug category and subcategory screens. Is there any chance of smug meeting my needs?
Beyond this, I will always need the ability to include <a href= statements in my gallery descriptions to link to corresponding blog entries, or possibly to other related galleries. Unless of course you intend to provide another space in the gallery to add these links...
Is it possible to get a response from a smug representative? If you don't want to answer here I'm happy to have a discussion via email or phone.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
in descriptions and captions. I'm mainly referring to photo galleries not info
pages.
"As part of improving SEO" ... I couldn't care less about this, why screw everyone for the sake of Pros. :pissed
My Website index | My Blog
Using "As part of improving SEO" as a reason not to allow HTML in gallery descriptions is pure bull as far as I'm concerned.
It's my choice what I put in the description - and honestly I haven't seen where the html is hurting my descriptions on Google.
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
For reasons I don't understand, Smugmug wouldn't say how they were going to do it, but it's my opinion that a likely way to meet both goals (a clean description for display on category pages and in SEO and allow full HTML for creative customizers) is to add another field below the description that can have arbitrary HTML. You could then decide to use one or both of those fields depending upon what you were trying to accomplish. To be clear here, Smugmug did not say this is what they are going to do (perhaps they have a different solution in mind), it just seems to me to be a logical solution to all party's needs.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
"As part of improving SEO" ... I couldn't care less about this, why screw everyone for the sake of Pros."
I'm also curious about the comment about "pieces of customization code showing up on Google and being the primary thing your gallery gets indexed by" - If never seen this nor has it been a problem for me.
My frustration with the situation is increased by the lack of response from Smugmug to these issues. It seems that John is a lone voice on this - WHY?
For a company that prides itself on it's customer service why are you letting us down now?
Caroline
www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+
[/URL]
I really would like to see a response from smug. Responses and comments from smug have been sorely lacking in all three new design threads.
The thing is, if I continue building my own breadcrumb - and I have seen nothing in the plans that would allow me to revert to the standard smug designs, I need the ability to place HTML above the gallery description since that is where I want my breadcrumb replacement. And since I want to link to relevant posts in my blog, I also need the ability to place HTML below (or as the last line of) the gallery description. One container is enough. Two is not enough if the top description box can't contain HTML.
SmugMug - please, how about some response here?
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
If they are both treated equally with respect to SEO then I have no problem using the botton box. And frankly I can't imagine how the bottom box wouldn't play equally into SEO, seems like it should have the same weight as the top box assuming that I don't use the top box. So hopefully I won't have a problem converting to the new world.
If smug would fix the presentation (thumb size, mixed galleries and subcategories, deeper folder structure) then I could actually use standard screens. I'm not holding my breath on that one though.
And I'm with Caroline on this - I haven't seen where having HTML in my description is hurting me. Maybe it's because the HTML is just <a href= links, but what shows on google is the text, not the HTML.
I'm not trying to be difficult, and I really appreciate your insight. I just don't understand why smug hasn't seen fit to answer these questions. I asked about this when they first posted the sneak peak thread. It became very clear almost immediately that they were being very selective about the questions they chose to answer.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Denise, we spent a lot of time this week on all of the feedback provided, and also in discussions with John Friend and some other folks as well at HQ. I can promise you we're working on all of this feedback. Everyone involved in the work we're doing here has read and seen all of your (and everyone's) postings. Please allow us some more time to digest all of this, to make more improvements, and to reply back to these feedback threads, which we will do. Thanks everyone for your input, and keep it coming.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I know you are in competitive industry and you can't share all of your plans, but it's been more than a bit disconcerting to see essentially no response to questions. And the implication from the beginning that we wouldn't be able to continue to use HTML in galleries created quite a bit of consternation - and not just with me. As far as I'm concerned that was a supported use of the gallery description per your own customization FAQ.
I look forward to seeing your answers.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Your response to Denise's comment is appreciated but getting it has been like pulling teeth
At least a regular acknowledgement from Smugmug would go someway to allaying the concern felt here.
Caroline
www.carolineshipsey.co.uk - Follow me on G+
[/URL]
I have replied to you in numerous places - please - do give us some time. We do promise that we're reading everything, and we're in the middle of hard work at SmugMug on the very things you all are bringing up. We promise to update when we have news.
Thank you every so much for your patience.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I suggest that everyone take a deep breath and not worry so much. Rather than panic about your current code, simply express the features you want that you are using custom HTML and CSS to create. Chances are very good that they've already thought of it, and if they haven't, this is your chance to ask for it. Wouldn't it be nice to easily customize through a nice UI instead of having to do all the custom coding in the gallery description box?
If you look at some of the competitors popping up, Smugmug does appear to need a significant overhaul. So this news is very exciting to me.
Smugmug is one of the most responsive, hands-on, easy access sites I've ever encountered on the web. Let's not take that for granted. Give them time to respond to your concerns -- we have plenty of time to adjust to these improvements!
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Fully agree!
SmugMug is doing a wonderful job!
Luc
Can you at least tell me if I will be able to use HTML in a box at the head of my galleries (as jfriend noted above) given that it's been stated that we won't be able to use HTML in the gallery description? To go along with that, assuming that you won't allow HTML in the description, I will need to totally suppress that box and I will need the as-yet-unnamed box to feed into search engines for SEO, no hiding.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Specifically, site-wide caption font colour settings in my CSS and as over-ridden by HTML in individual captions is working for some captions for these galleries, which is pleasing and promising for the ongoing development of the new design. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" >
However, HTML font size (<big> and </big>) and bold (<b> and </b>) specifications do not appear to be recognised (yet?). <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/headscratch.gif" border="0" alt="" >
Example below (note truncated wording in caption and keywords, and the shorter line length for keywords) -
interferes with design, we need full gallery width. Surely there's somewhere
else to place it. I would suggest the right end of .sm-breadcrumb or far right
of slideshow.
Also where is the "Map This" button going to reside?
Edit: Just noticed that turning off printing the width of the content in
the description does not change. The area for the buy button is still there
and the content is limited to about 75% of the description box.
My Website index | My Blog
Only some of it. Mine isn't working.
borealphoto.smugmug.com
Hey Gabby58,
It is a really good question. We are strategizing with the certified customization companies on how best to handle situations as you describe. We don't have any specifics to talk about publicly yet but there will be a path to migrate and a fee associated with it. Who pays and how much that will cost, are the key points in our discussion.
If you want to DM me your budget and thoughts, I can introduce you to directly to some that fit your needs and style.
Markham
www.twitter.com/markhambennett
I have to agree with Denise. We really need to be able to use HTML in the galleries description box. My site design depends heavily on that - most of my pages use HTML in the description box. I don't want my site breaking down due to these new features. And I really don't want to have to spend hours redesigning my site for these 'new features'. Why not just add these features and not take away the existing ones? I am very happy with the way my site is now and would not want any of the design broken.
This is very disconcerting and frustrating.
Cheers,
My Website | My Blog | My Facebook Page | My YouTube
Hi SmugMug,
I'm not sure if this is possible, but I would like to see greater integration for web-based fonts in the new design.
Maybe a way to set up a reference link via the fonts tool in the Easy Customizer for example.
I think font variety is an easy way for users to differentiate their sites and the advent of web-based fonts opens up new doors.
http://bobandalliephotography.smugmug.com/
Thanks!
http://bobandalliephotography.smugmug.com/
I'm sure I am not the only one with this question, and I know that the new smugmug release is all of 2 days old.
I have customized all of my galleries so that print orders flow though paypal, so that I can self fulfill the orders. I am also aware that there is javascript in this customization and that this new release does not support javascript.
Is anyone aware of an html script that will pull in the gallery name (or even the gallery number) and the photo number so that I can continue to self fulfill orders? I was able to create a paypal button have that work, but I am missing the photo information.
Thanks for the assistance.
Barry
I am in the same situation - as far as I can tell we're screwed. The SUpport Heroes say that because HTML customisation is available it's going to be fine, but they seem wilfully ignorant of the fact that the paypal integrations use Javascript.
Cheers - N
http://www.nzsnaps.com (talkiet.smugmug.com)
I agree. We can't be the only 2 users that are doing this. I have had 2 emails so far with the Heroes..Neither have addressed the issue of self-fulfilling orders. A straight answer would be helpful.
I may start look at the competition.