You agree? NO HEADER and still looks like crap! Sorry Andy, Looked at your link and the thumbs were still cut off at the bottom! Looks bad in my opinion! Trust me larger sizes do not help! My header is actually smaller in height than what the help tips in SmugMug suggests. My Nav Buttons were also taken straight from SmugMug Help. So is one to totally abandoned any customization's including a freaking description to make smugmoungous and stretchy work properly? Even that does not work!
Look, Before stretchy you could set your sizes to large at the most and if the viewer wanted larger they could click on the image and choose from a list of sizes that were available. As it is now there is no way to limit the size of image in the gallery view using stretchy and smugmongous. I'm all for big images, but to a point. When it makes the gallery look like crap I have to say it is to freaking big!
Here is a link to a screen cap with NO FREAKING HEADER!:
You agree? NO HEADER and still looks like crap! Sorry Andy, Looked at your link and the thumbs were still cut off at the bottom! Looks bad in my opinion! Trust me larger sizes do not help! My header is actually smaller in height than what the help tips in SmugMug suggests. My Nav Buttons were also taken straight from SmugMug Help. So is one to totally abandoned any customization's including a freaking description to make smugmoungous and stretchy work properly? Even that does not work!
Look, Before stretchy you could set your sizes to large at the most and if the viewer wanted larger they could click on the image and choose from a list of sizes that were available. As it is now there is no way to limit the size of image in the gallery view using stretchy and smugmongous. I'm all for big images, but to a point. When it makes the gallery look like crap I have to say it is to freaking big!
Here is a link to a screen cap with NO FREAKING HEADER!:
I changed the Theme to something ridiculous so that you would concentrate on what is actually going on in the image I posted.
Andy and JT, I think I'd have to agree with cjyphoto here that there's a bit of a problem with the layout algorithm that picks the size of the main image and how many thumbs, at least how it's working in his galleries. While he's stressing the system a bit with his header design, the layout algorithm still appears to be making a poor choice in some circumstances and I think he's right that it still has a problem in his galleries even when his header is shorter and more in the typical range.
You can see it in this gallery of his and size your window so that the total viewable space in the browser window is 1210 wide and 700 high (still fairly large). At that size, the algorithm decides to display the Large size main image because it just fits in the landscape orientation when you have three columns of thumbs. But, the landscape orientation is tall enough that it makes 5 rows of thumbs when only four are visible on the screen. Here's a screen shot of that exact configuration in his gallery:
And, believe it or not, there is another row of thumbs below the ones you can see. I cannot reproduce this on one of my own galleries so I'm not sure what is triggering it, but I don't think it's only because of the header size. Try it yourself on this gallery and see if you think it's working as best it should. I think there is some sort of logic problem or something weird going on in his galleries.
It appears to happen when the screen is wide enough to allow the main image to be large. In that case, it sizes the number of thumbs to match the height of a portrait orientation large image, but that leaves an entire row of thumbs off screen.
I don't look at header height when I do calculations - because there are some users with headers that are 1000px tall. You would end up with a small photo - which is lame.
Instead I look at the height of the browser window. Why? Because you can scroll down past the header and the photo and thumbs will fit perfectly. This approach would not have worked if the page had to redraw on every click and you would have to scroll down to see the photo and thumbs. But the gallery is ajaxed, you only have to scroll once.
The moral of the story is to have a smaller header if you are concerned that users won't know they have to scroll down to see the rest of your main photo or another row of thumbs.
Andy and JT, I think I'd have to agree with cjyphoto here that there's a bit of a problem with the layout algorithm that picks the size of the main image and how many thumbs, at least how it's working in his galleries. While he's stressing the system a bit with his header design, the layout algorithm still appears to be making a poor choice in some circumstances and I think he's right that it still has a problem in his galleries even when his header is shorter and more in the typical range.
You can see it in this gallery of his and size your window so that the total viewable space in the browser window is 1210 wide and 700 high (still fairly large). At that size, the algorithm decides to display the Large size main image because it just fits in the landscape orientation when you have three columns of thumbs. But, the landscape orientation is tall enough that it makes 5 rows of thumbs when only four are visible on the screen. Here's a screen shot of that exact configuration in his gallery:
And, believe it or not, there is another row of thumbs below the ones you can see. I cannot reproduce this on one of my own galleries so I'm not sure what is triggering it, but I don't think it's only because of the header size. Try it yourself on this gallery and see if you think it's working as best it should. I think there is some sort of logic problem or something weird going on in his galleries.
It appears to happen when the screen is wide enough to allow the main image to be large. In that case, it sizes the number of thumbs to match the height of a portrait orientation large image, but that leaves an entire row of thumbs off screen.
I don't look at header height when I do calculations - because there are some users with headers that are 1000px tall. You would end up with a small photo - which is lame.
Instead I look at the height of the browser window. Why? Because you can scroll down past the header and the photo and thumbs will fit perfectly. This approach would not have worked if the page had to redraw on every click and you would have to scroll down to see the photo and thumbs. But the gallery is ajaxed, you only have to scroll once.
The moral of the story is to have a smaller header if you are concerned that users won't know they have to scroll down to see the rest of your main photo or another row of thumbs.
I know you don't take into account the header height, but I think something else is going on here.
How many pixels do you allow for between the top of the window and the top of the top row of thumbs in order to never have thumbs off the bottom of the screen? I assume you must have this number coded into your algorithm somewhere.
I just want to verify that if he lives by that number, this gallery would work and it's ONLY an issue with his header height. Based on his other screen shots when he shrunk his header, I think there might be some other issue going on in this gallery and I'd just like to see for sure.
Separately, you are seeing a clear feature request from several foks for some way for users to control this themselves so they never get scrolling even when they have a little bit larger than normal header. That doesn't sound all that hard for you to do. You could just make a javascript variable that defaults to the default header height that you plan for and let them set it to something larger if they want to reserve more space for header so thumbs don't layout off screen. I'm not arguing that you should change the defaults, but some users feel like they lost some control they had before and this would give it back to them.
I really do not think it has anything to do with my header size. Like I said earlier it is actually not as tall as what is recommended in the Header tutorial. W750px x H150px.
I really do not think it has anything to do with my header size. Like I said earlier it is actually not as tall as what is recommended in the Header tutorial. W750px x H150px.
My header is W765px x H125px. I do not see how that could be stressing the system when it pretty close to SmugMug's recommended dimensions.
Besides it does the same thing with no header. I've also seen the same problem in other galleries not just mine.
Ironically Stretchy seems to work better when viewed on a standard monitor as opposed to a widescreen. Go figure?
Keep in mind that your header image may only be 125px high, but you have a nav bar also that makes your total definitely more than 150px. I don't think that's the only issue going on here, but you could reduce the problem by tightening up the space you take at the top.
I really do not think it has anything to do with my header size. Like I said earlier it is actually not as tall as what is recommended in the Header tutorial. W750px x H150px.
My header is W765px x H125px. I do not see how that could be stressing the system when it pretty close to SmugMug's recommended dimensions.
Besides it does the same thing with no header. I've also seen the same problem in other galleries not just mine.
Ironically Stretchy seems to work better when viewed on a standard monitor as opposed to a widescreen. Go figure?
Yeah, the reason it is a challenge on the widescreen, but not standard width is because it calculates that the Large image width (landscape orientation) will fit on the widescreen so it selects that size for the main image. It then figures it can fill up the Large screen height (protrait orientation) with thumbs. On the standard width screen, it never thinks the Large size (landscape orientation) will fit so it goes to the medium size and doesn't put in as many thumbs. I'm hoping JT looks at this again because your example with no header seems like it wouldn't be what anybody intended with the design.
The one thing that has me confused is that my account has no header and I cannot reproduce this effect on my account. I can get it so that about 1/4 of the bottom row of thumbs is clipped, but that's the most I can get it to do and even then, it's hard to do that because a little less and it takes a row of thumbs off - a little more and the thumbs are not obscured.
Currently, the page is calculated using the screenheight - 100px
That could be increased, causing the main photo size to drop thus the rows of thumbs would go down as well.
I can take a look today to see if it works out.
While you're at it, could you make the layout favor larger sizes for less thumbnails? At least for smaller windows. A browser window width of around 1000 px (1280 minus a bit and a sidebar) now produces a small (!) main image with 4 (!!) columns of thumbs. You could easily fit a medium there if you lost a column or two, and that would be great. I don't mind scrolling down once for portraits.
This affects all of my galleries I've looked at, example here.
I'll post screenshot if can coax my print screen button to life again
Another thing, could we get portraits centered under the < 6 of 9 > navigator?
While you're at it, could you make the layout favor larger sizes for less thumbnails? At least for smaller windows. A browser window width of around 1000 px (1280 minus a bit and a sidebar) now produces a small (!) main image with 4 (!!) columns of thumbs. You could easily fit a medium there if you lost a column or two, and that would be great. I don't mind scrolling down once for portraits.
This affects all of my galleries I've looked at, example here.
I'll post screenshot if can coax my print screen button to life again
Another thing, could we get portraits centered under the < 6 of 9 > navigator?
Size of my browsing area is 1040x840 px with and 1235x840 px without the sidebar. One shows a small main pic and the other a large. If you could squeeze at least a medium there where the small is, that would be great.
Edit: forgot to mention the browser in question is FF 2.0.0.11. IE7 does the same thing though.
So.... Is this just the way it is going to be? Just looked at some more galleries, not mine, and see the same thing where stretchy has been enabled. The thumbs are cut off at the bottom even if there is no header. To me it looks wrong like something is messed up. A friend of mine asked me if I did something to my site because of the way the page loaded. I had to tell him, Nope, I've been told that is how it supposed to look. :bash
My Pictures : My Gear
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
Size of my browsing area is 1040x840 px with and 1235x840 px without the sidebar. One shows a small main pic and the other a large. If you could squeeze at least a medium there where the small is, that would be great.
Edit: forgot to mention the browser in question is FF 2.0.0.11. IE7 does the same thing though.
So.... Is this just the way it is going to be? Just looked at some more galleries, not mine, and see the same thing where stretchy has been enabled. The thumbs are cut off at the bottom even if there is no header. To me it looks wrong like something is messed up. A friend of mine asked me if I did something to my site because of the way the page loaded. I had to tell him, Nope, I've been told that is how it supposed to look. :bash
Can you give me a screen resolution to look at galleries with?
Nevermind, I got it from your previous screenshot. I modified the ideal header height to be 175px tall - and it works well across several standard screen resolutions. The change will hopefully go live soon.
Nevermind, I got it from your previous screenshot. I modified the ideal header height to be 175px tall - and it works well across several standard screen resolutions. The change will hopefully go live soon.
Cool. I'm glad this will improve things for particular screen sizes or people with larger headers. Thanks JT.
Now, for those of us with skinny headers, will we lose a row of thumbs on some screens and will it go to a smaller main image sooner? Any chance of adding a JS variable to let us control this ideal header height if we want to and know what we're doing?
175px is for a skinny header - it is actually the default header, plus a line for the breadcrumb, two lines in the description and the row for navigation.
Cool. I'm glad this will improve things for particular screen sizes or people with larger headers. Thanks JT.
Now, for those of us with skinny headers, will we lose a row of thumbs on some screens and will it go to a smaller main image sooner? Any chance of adding a JS variable to let us control this ideal header height if we want to and know what we're doing?
175px is for a skinny header - it is actually the default header, plus a line for the breadcrumb, two lines in the description and the row for navigation.
I was asking on behalf of those (like me) who have headers that are skinnier than the default (mine is 105 pixels) and on behalf of those with larger than default headers who would rather sacrifice a row of thumbs and some main image size than have scrolling. Is there any reason to not give us control over this for our own galleries with a simple JS variable? You could still even control the default if you wanted by giving us a variable that you initialize to zero and we just put in a delta value (positive or negative).
Any way we could get an order-of-attack on the stretchifying the remaining themes? I know time's always variable, but it would be good to know which will get top priority. I'm interested in Carbonite, personally. Thanks.
Any way we could get an order-of-attack on the stretchifying the remaining themes? I know time's always variable, but it would be good to know which will get top priority. I'm interested in Carbonite, personally. Thanks.
That seems to be a very popular one. I can't give you any information about the order-of-attack, but I can tell you that the remaining themes are much more difficult to stretch than the ones we already stretched.
175px is for a skinny header - it is actually the default header, plus a line for the breadcrumb, two lines in the description and the row for navigation.
This change is now live, jfriend: I will look in to making it smarter to auto calculate the header size. But for now, I did not want to hold up a bug free release
This change is now live, jfriend: I will look in to making it smarter to auto calculate the header size. But for now, I did not want to hold up a bug free release
I'm seeing some significant layout problems where the main image gets laid out below the thumbs in Firefox. I used to only see this while I was resizing the window. Now, I see it at a number of specific window sizes. Screen shots below. Let me know if you can't reproduce it. It's easy for me to reproduce and it's not just an artifact of changing the window size. I can go to a different gallery and the problem persists. There appears to be some particular window sizes where the layout algorithm thinks things will fit in the window and Firefox doesn't think they will.
I'm seeing some significant layout problems where the main image gets laid out below the thumbs in Firefox. I used to only see this while I was resizing the window. Now, I see it at a number of specific window sizes. Screen shots below. Let me know if you can't reproduce it. It's easy for me to reproduce and it's not just an artifact of changing the window size. I can go to a different gallery and the problem persists. There appears to be some particular window sizes where the layout algorithm thinks things will fit in the window and Firefox doesn't think they will.
Comments
You agree? NO HEADER and still looks like crap! Sorry Andy, Looked at your link and the thumbs were still cut off at the bottom! Looks bad in my opinion! Trust me larger sizes do not help! My header is actually smaller in height than what the help tips in SmugMug suggests. My Nav Buttons were also taken straight from SmugMug Help. So is one to totally abandoned any customization's including a freaking description to make smugmoungous and stretchy work properly? Even that does not work!
Look, Before stretchy you could set your sizes to large at the most and if the viewer wanted larger they could click on the image and choose from a list of sizes that were available. As it is now there is no way to limit the size of image in the gallery view using stretchy and smugmongous. I'm all for big images, but to a point. When it makes the gallery look like crap I have to say it is to freaking big!
Here is a link to a screen cap with NO FREAKING HEADER!:
http://cjyphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3950239#232838645-A-LB
I changed the Theme to something ridiculous so that you would concentrate on what is actually goin on in the image I posted.
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
Andy and JT, I think I'd have to agree with cjyphoto here that there's a bit of a problem with the layout algorithm that picks the size of the main image and how many thumbs, at least how it's working in his galleries. While he's stressing the system a bit with his header design, the layout algorithm still appears to be making a poor choice in some circumstances and I think he's right that it still has a problem in his galleries even when his header is shorter and more in the typical range.
You can see it in this gallery of his and size your window so that the total viewable space in the browser window is 1210 wide and 700 high (still fairly large). At that size, the algorithm decides to display the Large size main image because it just fits in the landscape orientation when you have three columns of thumbs. But, the landscape orientation is tall enough that it makes 5 rows of thumbs when only four are visible on the screen. Here's a screen shot of that exact configuration in his gallery:
And, believe it or not, there is another row of thumbs below the ones you can see. I cannot reproduce this on one of my own galleries so I'm not sure what is triggering it, but I don't think it's only because of the header size. Try it yourself on this gallery and see if you think it's working as best it should. I think there is some sort of logic problem or something weird going on in his galleries.
It appears to happen when the screen is wide enough to allow the main image to be large. In that case, it sizes the number of thumbs to match the height of a portrait orientation large image, but that leaves an entire row of thumbs off screen.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Thanks - I'll make sure {JT} sees this
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=692686&postcount=39
I don't look at header height when I do calculations - because there are some users with headers that are 1000px tall. You would end up with a small photo - which is lame.
Instead I look at the height of the browser window. Why? Because you can scroll down past the header and the photo and thumbs will fit perfectly. This approach would not have worked if the page had to redraw on every click and you would have to scroll down to see the photo and thumbs. But the gallery is ajaxed, you only have to scroll once.
The moral of the story is to have a smaller header if you are concerned that users won't know they have to scroll down to see the rest of your main photo or another row of thumbs.
I know you don't take into account the header height, but I think something else is going on here.
How many pixels do you allow for between the top of the window and the top of the top row of thumbs in order to never have thumbs off the bottom of the screen? I assume you must have this number coded into your algorithm somewhere.
I just want to verify that if he lives by that number, this gallery would work and it's ONLY an issue with his header height. Based on his other screen shots when he shrunk his header, I think there might be some other issue going on in this gallery and I'd just like to see for sure.
Separately, you are seeing a clear feature request from several foks for some way for users to control this themselves so they never get scrolling even when they have a little bit larger than normal header. That doesn't sound all that hard for you to do. You could just make a javascript variable that defaults to the default header height that you plan for and let them set it to something larger if they want to reserve more space for header so thumbs don't layout off screen. I'm not arguing that you should change the defaults, but some users feel like they lost some control they had before and this would give it back to them.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1932865
My header is W765px x H125px. I do not see how that could be stressing the system when it pretty close to SmugMug's recommended dimensions.
Besides it does the same thing with no header. I've also seen the same problem in other galleries not just mine.
Ironically Stretchy seems to work better when viewed on a standard monitor as opposed to a widescreen. Go figure?
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
Keep in mind that your header image may only be 125px high, but you have a nav bar also that makes your total definitely more than 150px. I don't think that's the only issue going on here, but you could reduce the problem by tightening up the space you take at the top.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Yeah, the reason it is a challenge on the widescreen, but not standard width is because it calculates that the Large image width (landscape orientation) will fit on the widescreen so it selects that size for the main image. It then figures it can fill up the Large screen height (protrait orientation) with thumbs. On the standard width screen, it never thinks the Large size (landscape orientation) will fit so it goes to the medium size and doesn't put in as many thumbs. I'm hoping JT looks at this again because your example with no header seems like it wouldn't be what anybody intended with the design.
The one thing that has me confused is that my account has no header and I cannot reproduce this effect on my account. I can get it so that about 1/4 of the bottom row of thumbs is clipped, but that's the most I can get it to do and even then, it's hard to do that because a little less and it takes a row of thumbs off - a little more and the thumbs are not obscured.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
That could be increased, causing the main photo size to drop thus the rows of thumbs would go down as well.
I can take a look today to see if it works out.
This affects all of my galleries I've looked at, example here.
I'll post screenshot if can coax my print screen button to life again
Another thing, could we get portraits centered under the < 6 of 9 > navigator?
Thanks!
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
Sidebar open and sidebar closed.
Size of my browsing area is 1040x840 px with and 1235x840 px without the sidebar. One shows a small main pic and the other a large. If you could squeeze at least a medium there where the small is, that would be great.
Edit: forgot to mention the browser in question is FF 2.0.0.11. IE7 does the same thing though.
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
Good news, thank you
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
Nevermind, I got it from your previous screenshot. I modified the ideal header height to be 175px tall - and it works well across several standard screen resolutions. The change will hopefully go live soon.
Cool. I'm glad this will improve things for particular screen sizes or people with larger headers. Thanks JT.
Now, for those of us with skinny headers, will we lose a row of thumbs on some screens and will it go to a smaller main image sooner? Any chance of adding a JS variable to let us control this ideal header height if we want to and know what we're doing?
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I was asking on behalf of those (like me) who have headers that are skinnier than the default (mine is 105 pixels) and on behalf of those with larger than default headers who would rather sacrifice a row of thumbs and some main image size than have scrolling. Is there any reason to not give us control over this for our own galleries with a simple JS variable? You could still even control the default if you wanted by giving us a variable that you initialize to zero and we just put in a delta value (positive or negative).
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Swim for Them | WellmanHouse.net | AlbumFetcher | SmugShowBuilder
That seems to be a very popular one. I can't give you any information about the order-of-attack, but I can tell you that the remaining themes are much more difficult to stretch than the ones we already stretched.
This change is now live, jfriend: I will look in to making it smarter to auto calculate the header size. But for now, I did not want to hold up a bug free release
I'm seeing some significant layout problems where the main image gets laid out below the thumbs in Firefox. I used to only see this while I was resizing the window. Now, I see it at a number of specific window sizes. Screen shots below. Let me know if you can't reproduce it. It's easy for me to reproduce and it's not just an artifact of changing the window size. I can go to a different gallery and the problem persists. There appears to be some particular window sizes where the layout algorithm thinks things will fit in the window and Firefox doesn't think they will.
This looks like a definite problem to me.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I can't reproduce it in IE 7. I can make it happen in Safari, though not as easily as Firefox.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
EDIT: Seems to be only on Vista. But not IE7
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
John, fixed?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage