Why the GIANT gallery thumbnails?
dennismullen
Registered Users Posts: 709 Major grins
I'm trying to recreate my site on the new smugmug. The smallest size gallery thumbnail is Huge compared to what I had.
They don't all fit on the screen at once and some people have smaller monitors.
Cheers,
They don't all fit on the screen at once and some people have smaller monitors.
Cheers,
See my gallery at http://www.dennismullen.com
0
Comments
Chris Schmauch
www.GoodEyePhotography.com
Are you using stretchy mode in the layout for galleries? If you are and you resize your browser window smaller the images should resize (as on a laptop) Try mine resized.
No, I'm talking about the top layer where it shows your gallerias / folders. I use extra small and the picture for each gallery is still huge.
I can't have a grid with all my galleries because at that size I can only fit five across and three high.
On my vintage site I have them eight wide and four high and it only takes up half the screen.
Cheers,
JBHotShots.com
Facebook
7DII w/Grip, 50D w/Grip, 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L, 85/1.8, 50/1.8, Rokinon 8mm FE 3.2, 580EXII 430EX
OK, this is the smallest I can get mine. I made the gallery images set to small, and then on the display tab you can change the rows to '1' You have 24 galleries on your legacy, and I have 7 per row, so you would need 4 rows. I think it will still show your 24 even though you set rows to 1. Or you could set rows to 4. See mine now http://www.macromeister.co.uk/Images
Also, reduce the pixels between images to '1' and put the gallery info on the image, as I have. Andy's is the same, but his are larger (he has 21 galleries). http://williams.smugmug.com/Galleries
There is a need for a size like on my legacy site (see below) which is much smaller.
While your looking at my site note the wonderful JFriend HTML5 Slideshow on the homepage I'm being forced to give up!
Cheers,
Personally, and this is just a matter of preference, I'd go with a single image on the homepage. The presentation you have is slick, but the images, although good, seem to me to lack coherency. Might be better just to have one impressive image there? Also, if viewers get distracted by the presentation (I did) they may not delve deeper and explore the content of your site. Just my opinion - I'm sure others will disagree.
That may well be what you see on your monitor, but it ain't what everybody sees.
I look at your site on my 1280 x 800 laptop and I see your 7 as a row of 5 and then a row of two:
Attachment not found.
I agree with the OP - the smallest size currently available is too large for some users. Something akin to the "Thumbnail" and "Tiny" like we used to have would be useful for some of us. But that would be against the new ethos at SM which seems to be to reduce and restrict our options at every opportunity.
That's because if you resize the screen (or are using a laptop) it will automatically adjust from 1 row to 2. It has to do that to allow for different screen sizes with different people viewing it. I use a 24inch monitor, but if I reduce the window size to say 50% it will reduce the row length and increase the number of rows.
Yeah, I know that. Tried it on a 10" 1000px monitor and it's a right dog's dinner!
The thing about the homepage, IMO, is that some of us want to set it up so that everybody sees what we see. Simple to do by adding a setup menu option to select the number of images per row, then different screens would cope by adapting the image size, not by wrapping/unwrapping the rows.
I like this concept, but would still be happy if there were just a couple sizes smaller offered.
Cheers,
Yeah, I've lamented the demise of "Thumbnail" and "Tiny" several times on this forum lately.
If we had those back, AND got "x per row", we could do some great things.