Co-Branding Techniques...

PerezDesignGroup

I'm trying to Co-brand my site (thanks again Baldy) but I ran across a rather disturbing glitch. I set up a nice layout that was fixed to 750 pixels in width. Then, when I drilled into the album, it sniffed my browser, recognized my 1400x1600 res and pushed the size out to 856...thus ruining my 750px layout and making things look very messy and overlapped.

What tips could you suggest to avoid this? If I force all galleries to "Elegant", will it stop sniffing? I noticed you can't force galleries to "Elegant Small" either...is this normal?

Thanks, guys!

Baldy

PerezDesignGroup wrote:

I'm trying to Co-brand my site (thanks again Baldy) but I ran across a rather disturbing glitch. I set up a nice layout that was fixed to 750 pixels in width. Then, when I drilled into the album, it sniffed my browser, recognized my 1400x1600 res and pushed the size out to 856...thus ruining my 750px layout and making things look very messy and overlapped.

What tips could you suggest to avoid this? If I force all galleries to "Elegant", will it stop sniffing? I noticed you can't force galleries to "Elegant Small" either...is this normal?

Thanks, guys!

Hmmm... This may be a question for JT, but I can answer for Elegant versus Elegant Small.

We made a decision early on to make Elegant for 1024x768 monitors with the idea that while 46% of users may have it now, they are probably the ones most likely to subscribe to smugmug. And they were.

But we took a beating from the people they shared with, who often had 800x600. People with those monitors frequently had dial-up too. They complained of scrolling horizontally and vertically, and slow speed.

So we created Elegant Small for them. We'd like to let people force Elegant or Elegant Small, but we take a beating when we do. Continuing to sniff makes a world of complaints go away.

One way to compensate is to make your header/co-branding able to adjust to different widths. There are more sophisticated examples than this, but one that comes to mind is http://wireless.smugmug.com.

Thanks,
Baldy

PerezDesignGroup

Baldy wrote:

Hmmm... This may be a question for JT, but I can answer for Elegant versus Elegant Small.

We made a decision early on to make Elegant for 1024x768 monitors with the idea that while 46% of users may have it now, they are probably the ones most likely to subscribe to smugmug. And they were.

But we took a beating from the people they shared with, who often had 800x600. People with those monitors frequently had dial-up too. They complained of scrolling horizontally and vertically, and slow speed.

So we created Elegant Small for them. We'd like to let people force Elegant or Elegant Small, but we take a beating when we do. Continuing to sniff makes a world of complaints go away.

One way to compensate is to make your header/co-branding able to adjust to different widths. There are more sophisticated examples than this, but one that comes to mind is http://wireless.smugmug.com.

Thanks,
Baldy

Good points and completely understandable. Thanks for giving me that different perspective on the issue.

And thanks for pointing out the full size site. I never thought about going full-width. That will end up being the solution