Excellent update!

rutt

I thought I'd be a hero and track this down, but perhaps I misunderstood JT's post. With all the code removed from my CSS section, my buttons look great, just like yours. Add back the code to add some text to the footer of certainly galleries (Boston Ballet requires a disclaimer in return for access and posting), then it looks wrong again. This is only code like:

/* removes the BalletDisclaimer from all pages */
#BalletDisclaimer {
display: none;
}

/* shows the made-w-mac on a specific page */
.gallery_1324138 #BalletDisclaimer {
display: block ;
}

Is JT saying that ANY code at all disables the new stuff somehow, or that SM just can't track down every problem with customization and the new code?

Andy wrote:

So, your post proves JT right http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=35376

The way it looks, native, is the way it is on my site, http://andydemo.smugmug.com and the -O file I linked above

How've you been, Rutt?


EDIT: thanks for showing Teh Bikini shot again

Andy

rutt wrote:

Is JT saying that ANY code at all disables the new stuff somehow, or that SM just can't track down every problem with customization and the new code?

Yes and Yes.

You can copy puresmugblack to your customization, and adjust as needed, if you like.

rutt

I really don't understand this answer. i understand the SM can't track down every issue. I want to do it myself in this case. So my specific question is this: Is there a something specific in puresmugwhite that detects the existence of custom CSS (explicitly). Is it different than puresmugwhite? Given a few good clues, I can probably figure this out and share my results which might help some others.

Andy wrote:

Yes and Yes.

You can copy puresmugblack to your customization, and adjust as needed, if you like.

onethumb

rutt wrote:

... I was hoping for a fix for the horrible "Make 2nd Copy" bug, but I can still reproduce. Any update on the status of this that you guys can share? Thanks.

Don't know of this bug, I don't think... ?

Don

onethumb

rutt wrote:

I really don't understand this answer. i understand the SM can't track down every issue. I want to do it myself in this case. So my specific question is this: Is there a something specific in puresmugwhite that detects the existence of custom CSS (explicitly). Is it different than puresmugwhite? Given a few good clues, I can probably figure this out and share my results which might help some others.

Just a hunch, but it's possible that puresmugwhite cascades from puresmugblack. Have you tried both together?

Don

rutt

onethumb wrote:

Don't know of this bug, I don't think... ?

Don

Well, that's frustrating, since I've reported it more than once and have been assured more than once that you did know. Anyway Mike Lane has reported in here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=279863&highlight=copy#post279863

I think this may only happen in some galleries. One of mine where I have consistently been able to reproduce is: http://rutt.smugmug.com/gallery/1242703

rutt

Thanks for the clue, Don! Including both in order of white, then black worked. And now I have the hotness and the ballet disclaimers both!

onethumb wrote:

Just a hunch, but it's possible that puresmugwhite cascades from puresmugblack. Have you tried both together?

Don

Andy

rutt wrote:

Well, that's frustrating, since I've reported it more than once and have been assured more than once that you did know.

It's been in our bugtracker. I (re) forwarded it to Don, Rutt. Stay tuned.

Sheaf

Andy wrote:

It's been in our bugtracker. I (re) forwarded it to Don, Rutt. Stay tuned.

I think Don was just under the impression from the thread title that it was something related to this release.

bwg

Mike Lane wrote:

:nah

why is it a lee love in?

not sure what you mean by that...i was just referencing something in the code that i thought you would find amusing.

dogwood

new hotness

Andy wrote:

add this reference to your head tag section

<link href="/include/css/pureSmugBlack.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" id="pureSmugBlack" />

Okay, I'm not totally understanding this. I tried this code out, and I really like the new look/hotness, but as warned, it did change a couple of things that I won't be able to fix without help. So I just removed the code, no problem there.

But... if I want the new look/hotness, should I start a new thread in customization to help me fix the changes it makes that I don't want? I know this seems like an obvious question, but I'm just not clear if a) the new hotness + customization is supported by smugmug, and b) if the knowledge/resources to combine new hotness + customization are available.

DavidTO

dogwood wrote:

Okay, I'm not totally understanding this. I tried this code out, and I really like the new look/hotness, but as warned, it did change a couple of things that I won't be able to fix without help. So I just removed the code, no problem there.

But... if I want the new look/hotness, should I start a new thread in customization to help me fix the changes it makes that I don't want? I know this seems like an obvious question, but I'm just not clear if a) the new hotness + customization is supported by smugmug, and b) if the knowledge/resources to combine new hotness + customization are available.

I went through this, and I dunno if this'll help, but the code I had to enter to remove things looked like this. These may not be the things you want to remove, but may get you on the right track?

removed CSS

/*remove some puresmug elements*/
.boxBottom { 
background-image: none !important;
 border: none !important;
}
#photos { 
background-image: none !important;
 border: none !important;
}
#comment {border-top:4px ridge #D5B790 !important; margin-top:50px; padding:10px; background:#000;}
.albumNav {border:solid #faebd7 !important; border-width:1px 0 !important;}
#caption_bottom {border: none !important;}
.journal_entry {background-image: none !important;}
.boxTop {border:solid #faebd7 !important; border-width:1px 0 !important;}

Mike Lane

bigwebguy wrote:

not sure what you mean by that...i was just referencing something in the code that i thought you would find amusing.

:jawdrop
That is a lot of !important tags. But I don't get it, so we're not allowed to change the look of the buttons anymore or something? Putting that last in the source would (as you certainly know) prevent any changes.

bwg

Mike Lane wrote:

:jawdrop
That is a lot of !important tags. But I don't get it, so we're not allowed to change the look of the buttons anymore or something? Putting that last in the source would (as you certainly know) prevent any changes.

yeah...i just made the buttons, JT is the code man. I'm sure they have a plan, but i guess we'll just have to wait and see how they incorporate this with customizations down the road.

Barb

DavidTO wrote:

But one question: the keywords page has no customization at all. Web Dev doesn't even show the tab for it. Is that the way it has to be? No banner, no navbar, no nothing.

http://davidrosenthal.smugmug.com/keyword/

Did this get answered here or elsewhere and I missed it? I've looked, honest!

wxwax

Just want to add my congratulations to the kids who worked hard on the upgrade.

The new look is a huge improvement.

The pages really look splendid, set-off the images very nicely. I really like the gradient.

Nice job, folks, very nice indeed.

rainforest1155

bygates wrote:

DavidTo wrote:

But one question: the keywords page has no customization at all. Web Dev doesn't even show the tab for it. Is that the way it has to be? No banner, no navbar, no nothing.

http://davidrosenthal.smugmug.com/keyword/

Did this get answered here or elsewhere and I missed it? I've looked, honest!

Thanks for bringing this up again - I completely missed David's post. Reporeted over here in the bugreport section.

Sebastian

claudermilk

I'll add my thanks here (saw a couple of other related htreads too). Very nice updates & the header hack doesn't b0rk up my customizations. All good changes & the gallery customization page is so much nicer (my first "huh? what's going on here? cool!" moment).

I do notice, however that all the pretty buttons go away once you look into a shopping cart. Is this in the works, or am I just being lame?

Sheaf

claudermilk wrote:

I'll add my thanks here (saw a couple of other related htreads too). Very nice updates & the header hack doesn't b0rk up my customizations. All good changes & the gallery customization page is so much nicer (my first "huh? what's going on here? cool!" moment).

I do notice, however that all the pretty buttons go away once you look into a shopping cart. Is this in the works, or am I just being lame?

In the works. It turned out to be a massive project just to do the pages we did. So we still have photo tools and the cart to get done, among others.

{JT}

I am lost on this too - what is so amusing?

bigwebguy wrote:

not sure what you mean by that...i was just referencing something in the code that i thought you would find amusing.

{JT}

Actually - it does not prevent you from overriding anything. If you cascade your changes after mine and use !important - then it will work.

I took the easy way out and added !important to almost everything to ensure it worked right. Most of them will be removed (except the extra code that appears when you are using a browser that forces aqua form widgets)

Mike Lane wrote:

:jawdrop
That is a lot of !important tags. But I don't get it, so we're not allowed to change the look of the buttons anymore or something? Putting that last in the source would (as you certainly know) prevent any changes.

Mike Lane

{JT} wrote:

(except the extra code that appears when you are using a browser that forces aqua form widgets)

dirty, dirty safari...

(and camino)

{JT}

Mike Lane wrote:

dirty, dirty safari...

(and camino)

also ran in to problems with Opera too - so opera will NOT be showing the cool new buttons (I can't find a nice clean way of removing the existing name for the submit button). IE, Safari and FF I used a combo of padding, changing the height, 0px transparent fonts - but Opera does not like any of those. So back to default buttons for them

I updated Safari's code so that if you are running the latest version of webkit though, you will see the buttons

Mike Lane

{JT} wrote:

also ran in to problems with Opera too - so opera will NOT be showing the cool new buttons (I can't find a nice clean way of removing the existing name for the submit button). IE, Safari and FF I used a combo of padding, changing the height, 0px transparent fonts - but Opera does not like any of those. So back to default buttons for them

I updated Safari's code so that if you are running the latest version of webkit though, you will see the buttons

I'm a mac n00b... Got a linky to the webkit?

{JT}

Here is the blog (lots of good stuff coming to Safari - styleable text inputs!!!
http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/

And this program will download and give you the latest build of safari (webkit) each night:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/27294

Seriously - I know safari gets a lot of grief, but they support some neat things. Multiple backgrounds for a single class or ID would be totally awesome if IE or FF supported them too.

Mike Lane wrote:

I'm a mac n00b... Got a linky to the webkit?

DavidTO

{JT} wrote:

also ran in to problems with Opera too - so opera will NOT be showing the cool new buttons (I can't find a nice clean way of removing the existing name for the submit button). IE, Safari and FF I used a combo of padding, changing the height, 0px transparent fonts - but Opera does not like any of those. So back to default buttons for them

I updated Safari's code so that if you are running the latest version of webkit though, you will see the buttons

Does this explain why Camino's buttons are blank?

EDIT: In Safari I see the button for add photos, but the other buttons are Safari specials...

bwg

Mike Lane wrote:

I'm a mac n00b... Got a linky to the webkit?

mike, webkit is the rendering engine for safari/konqueror just like gecko is for firefox/camino

Andy

bygates wrote:

Did this get answered here or elsewhere and I missed it? I've looked, honest!

It's being addressed, hang in there guys