Adrian,
I am prefectly willing and capable to have a great degree of flexibility regarding this conversation...
But I thought I had pointed out why it was my wish to have an OPTION to decide whether I would like to have an iphone page, feeds, and other such things, or not...
but your course of action was to label my wishes counter-productive, call me ignorant, use the land-lord story to tell me that building a high wall around my own property would make me look like an idiot, etc.
all in all, your wording did not lead me to believe that your own stance on the issue was a display of flexibility either.
I still don't understand, why you act like if I threatened you, only by wishing for smugmug not to cut me out of the decision by what means I would like to share my photos.
you maybe have to undestand, that when I signed up, it was a bit different, and I chose smugmug for their ease of use, for their customizability (that was my major keypoint) and for their personal support.
Dude, the only thing I'm going to say to you right now is this:
I did not call you an idiot;
I do not see you as an idiot;
I did not mean for you to feel as if I called you an idiot;
I regret any ill feelings caused by my using the word;
but really, you're going to have to be a little more generous and flexible in your interpretation for conversation to be either pleasant or productive.
If that's all that you've gotten from my posts, it's no wonder things have gone as they have.
Then please enlighten me on what I should instead have gotten from your post?
it's not that I fail to see your effort of trying to convince me that the iphone website isn't the devils offspring... but I never labelled it as such.
It's not that you did not try to tell me that I don't have to be afraid of average joe stealing my photos, fine - I told you before it's not that I'm afraid of someone stealing my stuff... even though I don't mind making it a bit harder for anyone who might try... the longer it takes, and the more effort it needs the less "interesting" it usually becomes.
It's also not the fact that I'm terrified by real "digital burglars" quite well capable of getting my photos... I don't make a living of my photography, or at least not a substantial...
It's mostly, as I mentioned numerous times before, the fact, that I would like the freedom of choice of HOW I present my stuff... I have good reasons to do so, at least I believe... and only because I don't want it to be presented in the way smugmug enabled iphone browsing and by RSS feeds doesn't make a backwards digital hillbilly, I belive.
what of this is not clear, and why you first feel the need to highlight what I already told, and then not even go into detail and tell my why I'm so wrong, I don't get either.
I'm not here to try to convince you. Just stating my opinion. The fact that I don't hold your opinion in high regard is not an attack or an insult. I disagree with you, and have given my reasons why.
You choose to ignore much of what I was saying, and focus on perceived attack. That focus is your choice. I've clarified my intent and purpose.
I did actually acknowledge that I considered your desire understandable– if you recall, or if you were even reading. I still do feel that I understand where you are coming from In some ways I feel the same way that you do. I just think that you're wrong in the substantive position that you have taken.
If you are interested in understanding a position other than yours, my earlier posts, with explanation, remain. I suspect (though I hope I'm wrong!) that you are more interested in winning an online debate in the hope of furthering your agenda.
I don't agree with that either. I don't think that "winning" over me will help you.
There comes a point where, in your desire for privacy, one can just ruin other people's experience and make oneself look like an idiot.
Sorry, but you obviously misunderstand. What dgentile, myself and others are asking for is the ability to turn it off ONLY for our particular SM account.
You like it? Go for it.
But why should those who don't like it be forced to put up with it?
Would you buy a car with an advanced theft deterrent system on all the doors, but anyone crawling in through the trunk can drive away unimpeded?
The problem is that you are asking for a level of granularity that is likely not technically feasible.
Horsesh*t!
The /iphone url is parsed very early in the process. A simple site wide option (on/off) in the control panel to process or skip that step in the parsing would be trivial. (I write s/w and design hardware for a living, I don't use that term lightly).
And you're asking it in order to gratify a wish that is quite understandable emotionally, but pointless logically, and painfully counterproductive with regard to web usability.
Painfully counterproductive with regard to web usability?
To whom? The handful of iPhone users such as yourself who feel the net now revolves around your new toy?
Gentlemen, I think we need to make sure this discussion stays focused on Smugmug features/questions/suggestions rather than getting personal. And, in the vein of not getting personal, we must all make room for the fact that different people have different needs and desires so they may want a different set of options.
I'm one who has argued that those using CSS to hide things instead of using unlisted galleries should just hide things in the supported way and they won't show up in the iPhone interface. So, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that were hiding categories with CSS who are now bummed they show up on the iPhone interface. There are better ways to hide things that are supported in the iPhone interface so if those can be used to do what you're trying to do, then you should use the supported ways.
And, we should all know by now that right-click protection is pretty worthless for any sense of real image security (it takes me literally four seconds to bypass), so if you really want to protect your images, use nicely done custom watermarks which do work on the iPhone and nobody knows how to get around. Again, a better image security solution does exist that is supported on the iPhone.
But, for someone who really wants to control the look and feel of their site and decide which options are visible to their users, there is no work-around and it should be their choice (particularly for pro accounts) whether their images are exposed through the non-customizable, non-controllable iPhone interface or not. After all, Smugmug does market that you can completely customize the look and feel of your site and the iPhone interface is not respecting that. The exact words they use on their main sales/marketing page are "Completely customize". This promise is falling short with the iPhone interface.
Though I've argued against it many times before, I now support the idea of a per-account setting that can disable the /iphone access or redirect it to the regular web access point. For those who like the /iphone interface, it seems like it's no big deal if some other customers want to turn it off. Therefore, I don't see any negative impact on you if some other user turns it off for their account and it clearly would retain the promise of "completely customize" access to your photos by allowing accounts holders who don't want that non-customized view to disable it. In other words, I don't see any downside to offering the control to those who want it.
Gentlemen, I think we need to make sure this discussion stays focused on Smugmug features/questions/suggestions rather than getting personal. And, in the vein of not getting personal, we must all make room for the fact that different people have different needs and desires so they may want a different set of options.
I'm one who has argued that those using CSS to hide things instead of using unlisted galleries should just hide things in the supported way and they won't show up in the iPhone interface. So, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that were hiding categories with CSS who are now bummed they show up on the iPhone interface. There are better ways to hide things that are supported in the iPhone interface so if those can be used to do what you're trying to do, then you should use the supported ways.
And, we should all know by now that right-click protection is pretty worthless for any sense of real image security (it takes me literally four seconds to bypass), so if you really want to protect your images, use nicely done custom watermarks which do work on the iPhone and nobody knows how to get around. Again, a better image security solution does exist that is supported on the iPhone.
Complete agreement.
But, for someone who really wants to control the look and feel of their site and decide which options are visible to their users, there is no work-around and it should be their choice (particularly for pro accounts) whether their images are exposed through the non-customizable, non-controllable iPhone interface or not. After all, Smugmug does market that you can completely customize the look and feel of your site and the iPhone interface is not respecting that. The exact words they use on their main sales/marketing page are "Completely customize". This promise is falling short with the iPhone interface.
I actually agree that that marketing promise is not being kept– which is definitely a problem. As I said before, I do think that the idea of complete artistic control on the web was always a questionable promise.
But I don't agree with the "should's". They imply a simple moral imperative that doesn't exist here.
There comes a point where artistic desire for control, within a business agreement, clashes with limits of practicality, cost-effectiveness, and community standards.
I don't see the anti- /iphone folk in this thread considering any of those things.
I can (and do) sympathise, but I don't have to agree.
And my disagreement doesn't actually mean that I don't understand you. I do understand– as a technology enthusiast, I've seen these discussions before, and as an artist, I also am driven to greater creative control.
I've tried to reflect that understanding in my responses, by repeatedly acknowledging that the desire for artistic control is one that I understand and share.
Thanks for bringing the conversation back to an appropriate level.
winning over you? misunderstanding? perceived attack?
hell, I don't know where you get these ideas from...
I still don't understand why you act like someone's threatening you and your precious iphone access...
I can't make it any more simple: the only thing I want, is the control OVER MY OWN DATA... not yours.
So if you like the /iphone thing, fine... I don't care.
but why you act up like this, if others feel the need to have their OWN DATA presented in a controlled way, I truly fail to understand...
but alas, as long as you try to quibble around the issue like you do, I truly don't feel the need to elaborate it any further, as I believe to have made my point clear.
and one last thing: do you see, there are others here, paying smugmug customers like myself, who want the ability to control this thing...
and truly 150$/year isn't what I would define as a pittance either.
There are better ways to hide things that are supported in the iPhone interface so if those can be used to do what you're trying to do, then you should use the supported ways.
I wouldn't call them "better". Different. (Possibly) more secure. Not always better.
Unlisted galleries break navigation, pretty much by design.
For people who need to hide the occasional gallery thats probably OK, but I often need to hide from general public view 30+ galleries for an event. Broken navigation in this case just plain stinks.
Hiding the category/subcategory via CSS provides "just enough" home page privacy without sacrificing navigation.
I have a small request for future "features" such as RSS, iphone pages, and what may come in the way of "social networking"...
Whilst there are sure to be many who will appreciate these features, there will also be a large group of customers who quite possibly would love the control to switch a feature on or off for their own service.
I mean we already have a lot of "private" features with smugmug... I can hide galleries, I can protect them, I can have them unlisted, I can show them on smugmug, etc. etc...
and all of these at the discretion of the owner of the account... for each dedicated gallery.
I hope that with coming features this will be the same.... I know it's more work, an I know that for some it might be frustrating to see that some customers don't "appreciate" new stuff like the iphone page... but after all, giving more control to your customers will result in happier customers, and a happy customer is a good one
Thus please, I urge you, to include this "on/off" switch for coming new features related to "how something can be accessed" and "how something is being shared".
and on a second thought there's something else:
Please give us some sort of status information on what smugmug decides to do about the iphone pages, soon... thanks...
There comes a point where artistic desire for control, within a business agreement, clashes with limits of practicality, cost-effectiveness, and community standards.
I don't see the anti- /iphone folk in this thread considering any of those things.
As someone who's in the software development field: I don't see the addition, with the development and testing and maintenance time and expense required, of a new feature that specifically breaks an existing feature to be within the limits of practicality or cost-effectiveness. And when you know it's a feature that is used by a reasonable percentage of your customers, it doesn't fit community standards either. I know that the SM folks love their iPhones and enjoy being part of the iPhone developer community, but this is one place where I think they've decided to turn their back on their customers.
(Yes, Andy, I know that sounds harsh. It's meant to - just as harsh as many of us customers feel we're being treated. I love SM, but this isn't the level of service that I expect from this otherwise fine group of people.)
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited December 18, 2008
Hey everyone,
We're working on two buttons, one for hiding the iPhone interface and one for hiding feeds. We hope they're imminent, but they aren't through testing yet.
I know it sounds hollow but we do love the passion and feedback and wish we had delivered them long ago.
We're working on two buttons, one for hiding the iPhone interface and one for hiding feeds. We hope they're imminent, but they aren't through testing yet.
I know it sounds hollow but we do love the passion and feedback and wish we had delivered them long ago.
We're working on two buttons, one for hiding the iPhone interface and one for hiding feeds. We hope they're imminent, but they aren't through testing yet.
I know it sounds hollow but we do love the passion and feedback and wish we had delivered them long ago.
Thanks,
Baldy
Hi, I'd like to advertise an iphone link on my site, but I would like to customize which galleries are shown on the iphone interface (aside from making them private). Any update on the buttons you mention?
Thanks
Hi, I'd like to advertise an iphone link on my site, but I would like to customize which galleries are shown on the iphone interface (aside from making them private). Any update on the buttons you mention?
Thanks
no update but I'm gonna see what can be done about these.
Mobile Phone Saves
I have just become aware from a friend of mine that he can right click or save any photo on his mobile phone from my site, which I don't really have a problem with. They are low res and I agree that it can only bring light to my work. Except that, my watermark does not show up. He has tried several different photos from different galleries, and all without a watermark. The watermark shows up on the PC smugmug site, but not on a save from the mobile site. I read through this long thread, but have not seen any answer for this. Can someone help?
Just wondering if there are any plans to remove the iPhone feature. I am working on setting up my SmugMug Pro account for business use, but I know that many of my potential clients will go to my site for the first time via their iPhone. I would rather them see the small version of the normal site instead of seeing a totally unprofessional looking iPhone version of the site.
My trial period has just ended and I was about to go ahead and subscribe, but honestly I may look into one of the other services just because of this issue. I really like everything else so far with SmugMug so I'm not trying to nitpick, but I really don't want the first impression of me to be the generic iPhone version of the website.
Just wondering if there are any plans to remove the iPhone feature. I am working on setting up my SmugMug Pro account for business use, but I know that many of my potential clients will go to my site for the first time via their iPhone. I would rather them see the small version of the normal site instead of seeing a totally unprofessional looking iPhone version of the site.
My trial period has just ended and I was about to go ahead and subscribe, but honestly I may look into one of the other services just because of this issue. I really like everything else so far with SmugMug so I'm not trying to nitpick, but I really don't want the first impression of me to be the generic iPhone version of the website.
We're looking into it, but it won't be immediate. I've got {JT} on the case.
But let me say, as a pro myself, I think your being short sighted. I don't care how clients see my images, only that they see 'em.
Still, we'll investigate the option of disabling, as Baldy said we would.
But let me say, as a pro myself, I think your being short sighted. I don't care how clients see my images, only that they see 'em.
+1 I agree with Andy. Who cares HOW they see the photos; as long as they CAN. Besides, there's lots of other ways to view your photos... RSS feeds, all sorts of iPhone apps, etc.. If I want to, I can even look at your galleries via. "www.smugmug.com" which effectively disables all your customization too. Bottom line is that if I want to view your photos without your customization, I'll do it....
But, *I* am the one with the money to spend, and are you really going to tell me that my money isn't good if I don't look at the photos in the exactly right way?
+1 I agree with Andy. Who cares HOW they see the photos; as long as they CAN. Besides, there's lots of other ways to view your photos... RSS feeds, all sorts of iPhone apps, etc.. If I want to, I can even look at your galleries via. "www.smugmug.com" which effectively disables all your customization too. Bottom line is that if I want to view your photos without your customization, I'll do it....
But, *I* am the one with the money to spend, and are you really going to tell me that my money isn't good if I don't look at the photos in the exactly right way?
David
Can people buy photos through the iPhone interface (that's a rhetorical question - the answer is NO)? If you're a pro looking to sell, wouldn't you want your customers to see your photos in an interface that they can purchase from or at least see how to purchase photos?
The issue isn't that there are other ways for them to see your photos. The issue is that when they go to your site on an iphone, the viewer is shown the photos in one particular way and it's not what the site owner wants.
Can people buy photos through the iPhone interface (that's a rhetorical question - the answer is NO)? If you're a pro looking to sell, wouldn't you want your customers to see your photos in an interface that they can purchase from or at least see how to purchase photos?
The issue isn't that there are other ways for them to see your photos. The issue is that when they go to your site on an iphone, the viewer is shown the photos in one particular way and it's not what the site owner wants.
You can't really buy photos via. an iphone from the normal interface either. So, not really a big deal...
But, while the iPhone interface is a part of SmugMug, it's not FORCED on the iPhone user. They have to click it to see it. So, if I'm an iPhone user, I have to go out of my way to see it. This is a non-issue in my opinion.
+1 I agree with Andy. Who cares HOW they see the photos; as long as they CAN.
I would agree that seeing my photos is better than not at all, but that's still no excuse for not permitting users to disable the iPhone interface. I use my SmugMug site as a proof gallery and don't link to it from anywhere. If a client happens to go there, I don't want them to see the SM iPhone interface. I want them to see mine.
So maybe this was covered already--I didn't read every post in this thread--but my understanding of CSS is that the whole point is that it can be overridden at will to make pages more accessible (that would be the "cascading" bit). The problem with html4 was that, if someone painstakingly crafted a webpage they intended to be viewed "just so", and this made it impossible for you to view, you couldn't do anything about it. CSS was supposed to fix this by allowing you, the viewer, to have some control over how you viewed things.
To that end, turning off CSS in Firefox is but a click-drag-release away (Opera goes a step further by allowing you to specify your own CSS to be used instead). Anyone visiting the '/iphone/' interface on a normal browser is clearly not interested in your CSS, so what's supposed to keep them from just turning it off period? I just don't understand it. To suddenly insist that CSS need be followed to the T or the page shouldn't even be served seems like 1) a step backwards to me, and 2) impossible to enforce. Any solution that smugmug comes up with will be as useless as the TSA, and will only serve as a monument to their willingness to do what their customers ask of them, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
Comments
I am prefectly willing and capable to have a great degree of flexibility regarding this conversation...
But I thought I had pointed out why it was my wish to have an OPTION to decide whether I would like to have an iphone page, feeds, and other such things, or not...
but your course of action was to label my wishes counter-productive, call me ignorant, use the land-lord story to tell me that building a high wall around my own property would make me look like an idiot, etc.
all in all, your wording did not lead me to believe that your own stance on the issue was a display of flexibility either.
I still don't understand, why you act like if I threatened you, only by wishing for smugmug not to cut me out of the decision by what means I would like to share my photos.
you maybe have to undestand, that when I signed up, it was a bit different, and I chose smugmug for their ease of use, for their customizability (that was my major keypoint) and for their personal support.
it's not that I fail to see your effort of trying to convince me that the iphone website isn't the devils offspring... but I never labelled it as such.
It's not that you did not try to tell me that I don't have to be afraid of average joe stealing my photos, fine - I told you before it's not that I'm afraid of someone stealing my stuff... even though I don't mind making it a bit harder for anyone who might try... the longer it takes, and the more effort it needs the less "interesting" it usually becomes.
It's also not the fact that I'm terrified by real "digital burglars" quite well capable of getting my photos... I don't make a living of my photography, or at least not a substantial...
It's mostly, as I mentioned numerous times before, the fact, that I would like the freedom of choice of HOW I present my stuff... I have good reasons to do so, at least I believe... and only because I don't want it to be presented in the way smugmug enabled iphone browsing and by RSS feeds doesn't make a backwards digital hillbilly, I belive.
what of this is not clear, and why you first feel the need to highlight what I already told, and then not even go into detail and tell my why I'm so wrong, I don't get either.
You choose to ignore much of what I was saying, and focus on perceived attack. That focus is your choice. I've clarified my intent and purpose.
I did actually acknowledge that I considered your desire understandable– if you recall, or if you were even reading. I still do feel that I understand where you are coming from In some ways I feel the same way that you do. I just think that you're wrong in the substantive position that you have taken.
If you are interested in understanding a position other than yours, my earlier posts, with explanation, remain. I suspect (though I hope I'm wrong!) that you are more interested in winning an online debate in the hope of furthering your agenda.
I don't agree with that either. I don't think that "winning" over me will help you.
cheers
adrian.
You like it? Go for it.
But why should those who don't like it be forced to put up with it?
Would you buy a car with an advanced theft deterrent system on all the doors, but anyone crawling in through the trunk can drive away unimpeded?
Horsesh*t!
The /iphone url is parsed very early in the process. A simple site wide option (on/off) in the control panel to process or skip that step in the parsing would be trivial. (I write s/w and design hardware for a living, I don't use that term lightly).
$150/year is hardly a pittance. YMMV
Painfully counterproductive with regard to web usability?
To whom? The handful of iPhone users such as yourself who feel the net now revolves around your new toy?
Rhetorical question no doubt.
I'm one who has argued that those using CSS to hide things instead of using unlisted galleries should just hide things in the supported way and they won't show up in the iPhone interface. So, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that were hiding categories with CSS who are now bummed they show up on the iPhone interface. There are better ways to hide things that are supported in the iPhone interface so if those can be used to do what you're trying to do, then you should use the supported ways.
And, we should all know by now that right-click protection is pretty worthless for any sense of real image security (it takes me literally four seconds to bypass), so if you really want to protect your images, use nicely done custom watermarks which do work on the iPhone and nobody knows how to get around. Again, a better image security solution does exist that is supported on the iPhone.
But, for someone who really wants to control the look and feel of their site and decide which options are visible to their users, there is no work-around and it should be their choice (particularly for pro accounts) whether their images are exposed through the non-customizable, non-controllable iPhone interface or not. After all, Smugmug does market that you can completely customize the look and feel of your site and the iPhone interface is not respecting that. The exact words they use on their main sales/marketing page are "Completely customize". This promise is falling short with the iPhone interface.
Though I've argued against it many times before, I now support the idea of a per-account setting that can disable the /iphone access or redirect it to the regular web access point. For those who like the /iphone interface, it seems like it's no big deal if some other customers want to turn it off. Therefore, I don't see any negative impact on you if some other user turns it off for their account and it clearly would retain the promise of "completely customize" access to your photos by allowing accounts holders who don't want that non-customized view to disable it. In other words, I don't see any downside to offering the control to those who want it.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Very well stated mbellot & John...
As a long time pro-acct CUSTOMER I feel it needs to be corrected to offer us the option - rather than force it down our throats
-rich56k
Member: ASMP; EP; NPPA; CPS
Complete agreement.
I actually agree that that marketing promise is not being kept– which is definitely a problem. As I said before, I do think that the idea of complete artistic control on the web was always a questionable promise.
But I don't agree with the "should's". They imply a simple moral imperative that doesn't exist here.
There comes a point where artistic desire for control, within a business agreement, clashes with limits of practicality, cost-effectiveness, and community standards.
I don't see the anti- /iphone folk in this thread considering any of those things.
I can (and do) sympathise, but I don't have to agree.
And my disagreement doesn't actually mean that I don't understand you. I do understand– as a technology enthusiast, I've seen these discussions before, and as an artist, I also am driven to greater creative control.
I've tried to reflect that understanding in my responses, by repeatedly acknowledging that the desire for artistic control is one that I understand and share.
Thanks for bringing the conversation back to an appropriate level.
cheers
adrian.
winning over you? misunderstanding? perceived attack?
hell, I don't know where you get these ideas from...
I still don't understand why you act like someone's threatening you and your precious iphone access...
I can't make it any more simple: the only thing I want, is the control OVER MY OWN DATA... not yours.
So if you like the /iphone thing, fine... I don't care.
but why you act up like this, if others feel the need to have their OWN DATA presented in a controlled way, I truly fail to understand...
but alas, as long as you try to quibble around the issue like you do, I truly don't feel the need to elaborate it any further, as I believe to have made my point clear.
and one last thing: do you see, there are others here, paying smugmug customers like myself, who want the ability to control this thing...
and truly 150$/year isn't what I would define as a pittance either.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Andy,
thank you for your feedback here... it's good to know that the concerns are being understood by smugmug's team!
is there any chance you could give us a little bit more "insight" on what the plan looks like to solve the "problem" ??
thanks
Daniel
Unlisted galleries break navigation, pretty much by design.
For people who need to hide the occasional gallery thats probably OK, but I often need to hide from general public view 30+ galleries for an event. Broken navigation in this case just plain stinks.
Hiding the category/subcategory via CSS provides "just enough" home page privacy without sacrificing navigation.
Bingo.
My site, my choice. I don't want it shut down for everyone, I just want to control how MY images are put out there.
Andy: I sure hope this is actually being worked on and not just "read and understood" with no intention of changing the status quo.
I have a small request for future "features" such as RSS, iphone pages, and what may come in the way of "social networking"...
Whilst there are sure to be many who will appreciate these features, there will also be a large group of customers who quite possibly would love the control to switch a feature on or off for their own service.
I mean we already have a lot of "private" features with smugmug... I can hide galleries, I can protect them, I can have them unlisted, I can show them on smugmug, etc. etc...
and all of these at the discretion of the owner of the account... for each dedicated gallery.
I hope that with coming features this will be the same.... I know it's more work, an I know that for some it might be frustrating to see that some customers don't "appreciate" new stuff like the iphone page... but after all, giving more control to your customers will result in happier customers, and a happy customer is a good one
Thus please, I urge you, to include this "on/off" switch for coming new features related to "how something can be accessed" and "how something is being shared".
and on a second thought there's something else:
Please give us some sort of status information on what smugmug decides to do about the iphone pages, soon... thanks...
thank you.
daniel
As someone who's in the software development field: I don't see the addition, with the development and testing and maintenance time and expense required, of a new feature that specifically breaks an existing feature to be within the limits of practicality or cost-effectiveness. And when you know it's a feature that is used by a reasonable percentage of your customers, it doesn't fit community standards either. I know that the SM folks love their iPhones and enjoy being part of the iPhone developer community, but this is one place where I think they've decided to turn their back on their customers.
(Yes, Andy, I know that sounds harsh. It's meant to - just as harsh as many of us customers feel we're being treated. I love SM, but this isn't the level of service that I expect from this otherwise fine group of people.)
my words, my "pro"pictures, my "fun" pictures, my videos.
We're working on two buttons, one for hiding the iPhone interface and one for hiding feeds. We hope they're imminent, but they aren't through testing yet.
I know it sounds hollow but we do love the passion and feedback and wish we had delivered them long ago.
Thanks,
Baldy
Thanks for the update!
Hi, I'd like to advertise an iphone link on my site, but I would like to customize which galleries are shown on the iphone interface (aside from making them private). Any update on the buttons you mention?
Thanks
Crescent City Prints
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
+1 for customizing or disabling the iphone backdoor.
Mike
I have just become aware from a friend of mine that he can right click or save any photo on his mobile phone from my site, which I don't really have a problem with. They are low res and I agree that it can only bring light to my work. Except that, my watermark does not show up. He has tried several different photos from different galleries, and all without a watermark. The watermark shows up on the PC smugmug site, but not on a save from the mobile site. I read through this long thread, but have not seen any answer for this. Can someone help?
Tim
Canon 40D
Save $5 on a new Smugmug Membership
Host your website for just $3.45/mo with JustHost - Rated best web host of 2010
See my profile for a gear list & more
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Canon 40D
My trial period has just ended and I was about to go ahead and subscribe, but honestly I may look into one of the other services just because of this issue. I really like everything else so far with SmugMug so I'm not trying to nitpick, but I really don't want the first impression of me to be the generic iPhone version of the website.
But let me say, as a pro myself, I think your being short sighted. I don't care how clients see my images, only that they see 'em.
Still, we'll investigate the option of disabling, as Baldy said we would.
Thanks!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
But, *I* am the one with the money to spend, and are you really going to tell me that my money isn't good if I don't look at the photos in the exactly right way?
David
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
The issue isn't that there are other ways for them to see your photos. The issue is that when they go to your site on an iphone, the viewer is shown the photos in one particular way and it's not what the site owner wants.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
But, while the iPhone interface is a part of SmugMug, it's not FORCED on the iPhone user. They have to click it to see it. So, if I'm an iPhone user, I have to go out of my way to see it. This is a non-issue in my opinion.
David
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
I would agree that seeing my photos is better than not at all, but that's still no excuse for not permitting users to disable the iPhone interface. I use my SmugMug site as a proof gallery and don't link to it from anywhere. If a client happens to go there, I don't want them to see the SM iPhone interface. I want them to see mine.
Save $5 on a new Smugmug Membership
Host your website for just $3.45/mo with JustHost - Rated best web host of 2010
See my profile for a gear list & more
To that end, turning off CSS in Firefox is but a click-drag-release away (Opera goes a step further by allowing you to specify your own CSS to be used instead). Anyone visiting the '/iphone/' interface on a normal browser is clearly not interested in your CSS, so what's supposed to keep them from just turning it off period? I just don't understand it. To suddenly insist that CSS need be followed to the T or the page shouldn't even be served seems like 1) a step backwards to me, and 2) impossible to enforce. Any solution that smugmug comes up with will be as useless as the TSA, and will only serve as a monument to their willingness to do what their customers ask of them, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.