If you have a video in a gallery and you're using the Journal style and click the video, it opens in the lightbox and plays. That's all well and good, but when you close the lightbox, your window has been scrolled all the way back to the top instead of leaving it where it was (IE8 on Vista, didn't try other browsers).
If you have a video in a gallery and you're using the Journal style and click the video, it opens in the lightbox and plays. That's all well and good, but when you close the lightbox, your window has been scrolled all the way back to the top instead of leaving it where it was (IE8 on Vista, didn't try other browsers).
This was Pre-lightbox... so I'd like to amend my request that if a user clicks on a pic, they see it as big as they want in the lightbox view.
I'd rather be able to set a default pic size, and allow the option to increase or decrease the default number of pics per page (from 10)
1 problem I see with the "newness" is that the pic is so large, many users would not know to scroll down to see more pics.... and clicking on them does nothing.
Also, don't forget to support the videos somehow...
My original request I've been making since 2005 is simpler and more flexible... but I think you will see that there is plenty of interest in improving the viewing styles.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy Journal style is being worked on, I just hope you add a little more to it before calling it done.
Making it easier for me to organize my pics is great for me... but making the viewing styles better, makes it great for a lot of folks!
This was Pre-lightbox... so I'd like to amend my request that if a user clicks on a pic, they see it as big as they want in the lightbox view.
I'd rather be able to set a default pic size, and allow the option to increase or decrease the default number of pics per page (from 10)
1 problem I see with the "newness" is that the pic is so large, many users would not know to scroll down to see more pics.... and clicking on them does nothing.
Also, don't forget to support the videos somehow...
My original request I've been making since 2005 is simpler and more flexible... but I think you will see that there is plenty of interest in improving the viewing styles.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy Journal style is being worked on, I just hope you add a little more to it before calling it done.
Making it easier for me to organize my pics is great for me... but making the viewing styles better, makes it great for a lot of folks!
Hi dmc,
I'm the sorcerer who worked on the new Journal style and I really appreciate this awesome feedback. This was a pretty significant change to Journal style and we launched knowing that it is not yet perfect or done. We need comments like yours to keep coming in so that we can continue to refine it. We actually just shipped a change today in response to some posts made the other day!
I hope you are happy to hear that your comments definitely count and we take them seriously.
(quote the big guy): Customizers can give their fans a full-browser slideshow
with their awesome design: Example on Andy's site.
There's a ton of stuff out there on slideshow customization... is there any link available to help us do what Andy's got going on in the link above? So sweet.
Please feel free to retouch and repost my images. Critique, Suggestions, and Technique tips always welcomed.
0
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited July 14, 2009
We've been getting a lot of comments about speed of Journal, a lot of them as comments in the gallery that went viral, mostly good and a few bad.
First the good news. Here's how the speed monitors tend to rank us thanks to Akamai:
It's not easy to be fast when your pages are laden with photographs.
The bad news is if you right-click-protect your images, perceptually Journal will load very slow because you have to wait for the images to fully render before they are displayed.
For those of you who have both Safari and Firefox on a Mac, you'll notice how much faster Safari is. The transfer to both browsers is the same, but Firefox only provides for single-threaded rendering.
One of the reasons we're keeping the image count to ten at the moment is because no matter how fast we serve them, there are issues with local connections and machines and these can be pretty big images.
Hmmm. So at some window heights, you cannot see any full landscape image on screen at once. Sure seems odd to me. I guess I'll avoid the new journal style. Too bad, I thought it had promise. I get that you want images as large as possible, but I do NOT get why you purposely pick a size that requires scrolling to view. I thought the whole point of picking a dynamic size was to avoid scrolling, while still picking the largest possible image. I don't get it.
jfriend,
We know Journal style is not yet perfect. We value these comments and will continue to improve the algorithm and the feature set as we see fit.
Again, at the most popular resolutions, with a maximized browser, landscape images work really well. When we start messing with the browser size (really wide and short, really tall and skinny, etc), things start to get a little grey. It's tough to know what a user expects to see in those cases. Some don't mind scrolling, some do. I believe that over time, with enough data, we can perfect it through algorithm tweaks or feature enhancements.
It will be interesting to see how the community feels on this issue.
You can see through the semi-transparency of the lightbox that it jumps back to the top the instant the lightbox appears rather than when you close it.
(This was in reference to the behavior of videos in Journal style)
0
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
I'm just surprised that you think it's ever the right thing to force vertical scrolling on a single image (e.g. make the image taller than the viewable area). You never do that in the lightbox view, do you?
We don't, no, but a very common behavior in lightbox view is for customers to open it, then click the menu along the top to see a bigger size.
I think we do the right thing bringing up the size that always fits, but for plenty of people it's a pain because they always have to make a second click to see the size they want. It makes me crazy when I'm on my laptop because I'm in the camp that hates the size we deliver.
We don't, no, but a very common behavior in lightbox view is for customers to open it, then click the menu along the top to see a bigger size.
I think we do the right thing bringing up the size that always fits, but for plenty of people it's a pain because they always have to make a second click to see the size they want. It makes me crazy when I'm on my laptop because I'm in the camp that hates the size we deliver.
Wow, so you actually want lightbox to come up with an image that doesn't fit the screen. We certainly do not see it the same way. At least in the lightbox, the size you want is one click away.
The new journal view doesn't give you any options. Perhaps the eventual solution for journal is to offer a "bigger" and "smaller" control to influence the bias (fill horizontally vs. fit vertically). I'm not sure the extra complication is worth it, but it would stop the debate about what the ONE single solution has to be to meet the needs of the different camps of people that legitimately want it to work differently.
We don't, no, but a very common behavior in lightbox view is for customers to open it, then click the menu along the top to see a bigger size.
I think we do the right thing bringing up the size that always fits, but for plenty of people it's a pain because they always have to make a second click to see the size they want. It makes me crazy when I'm on my laptop because I'm in the camp that hates the size we deliver.
That's what the photobar is for, hover, one click to the size you want.
Just have to aim the mouse.
Slideshow??
I am a bit confused, I have made no changes to my page in many months and I went on to check my photos and the mainpage slideshow is messed up. The photos are only showing a portion of the original and they are increased in size. Can someone tell me what is going on?
I am a bit confused, I have made no changes to my page in many months and I went on to check my photos and the mainpage slideshow is messed up. The photos are only showing a portion of the original and they are increased in size. Can someone tell me what is going on?
Since you're probably the 30th person I've seen have problems with this, it's got to be something that Smugmug did. If it's any comfort, your slideshow is working fine for me and not showing that problem. The standard response is to clear your browser cache and restart your browser and see if the problem persists.
cry Change it back please. The portraits look absolutely puny, like thumbnails.
Malte
This was on 1280x800, 1280x1024 is a whole other ball o' wax, quite nice lookin'... Except on 1280x1024 the landscape ones have quite a bit of space top and bottom.
Wow, so you actually want lightbox to come up with an image that doesn't fit the screen. We certainly do not see it the same way. At least in the lightbox, the size you want is one click away.
As I mentioned and you probably saw from Malte's comments, below yours, there are two audiences that roughly divide by people on photography forums and the rest. We often see it with pros and their customers.
My interpretation is high-end shooters want their customers to see it pixel-perfect exactly as they cropped it. The viewer just thinks bigger is better.
We err on the side of the shooter because they are our subscribers.
Help!
I don't know what has happened but my slideshow is not showing the photos in their proper format. Some of the pictures are fine, but others are cut off, enlarged to 3x their normal size, and formatted in a square box. I have done no changes to my site in quite some time, I want to keep it the way it was.
Can someone help me with this mystery?
I don't know what has happened but my slideshow is not showing the photos in their proper format. Some of the pictures are fine, but others are cut off, enlarged to 3x their normal size, and formatted in a square box. I have done no changes to my site in quite some time, I want to keep it the way it was.
Can someone help me with this mystery?
There's some kind of serious problem with the slideshow as LOTS of people are having this problem. I hope Smugmug is working on it, but I can't tell from the forums here.
Comments
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Glad to see the Journal Style is being worked on... sounds like it needs a little more polishing though.
I haven't posted in a while, but have been lurking, hoping for some new stuff.
Thought I'd share my old Oct 2005 post requesting Journal enhancments...
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=179423&postcount=387
This was Pre-lightbox... so I'd like to amend my request that if a user clicks on a pic, they see it as big as they want in the lightbox view.
I'd rather be able to set a default pic size, and allow the option to increase or decrease the default number of pics per page (from 10)
1 problem I see with the "newness" is that the pic is so large, many users would not know to scroll down to see more pics.... and clicking on them does nothing.
Also, don't forget to support the videos somehow...
My original request I've been making since 2005 is simpler and more flexible... but I think you will see that there is plenty of interest in improving the viewing styles.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy Journal style is being worked on, I just hope you add a little more to it before calling it done.
Making it easier for me to organize my pics is great for me... but making the viewing styles better, makes it great for a lot of folks!
I'm the sorcerer who worked on the new Journal style and I really appreciate this awesome feedback. This was a pretty significant change to Journal style and we launched knowing that it is not yet perfect or done. We need comments like yours to keep coming in so that we can continue to refine it. We actually just shipped a change today in response to some posts made the other day!
I hope you are happy to hear that your comments definitely count and we take them seriously.
-Brian
with their awesome design:
There's a ton of stuff out there on slideshow customization... is there any link available to help us do what Andy's got going on in the link above? So sweet.
Stephen Skoutas
http://stephenskoutas.com
sskoutas@gmail.com Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse
Please feel free to retouch and repost my images. Critique, Suggestions, and Technique tips always welcomed.
First the good news. Here's how the speed monitors tend to rank us thanks to Akamai:
It's not easy to be fast when your pages are laden with photographs.
The bad news is if you right-click-protect your images, perceptually Journal will load very slow because you have to wait for the images to fully render before they are displayed.
For those of you who have both Safari and Firefox on a Mac, you'll notice how much faster Safari is. The transfer to both browsers is the same, but Firefox only provides for single-threaded rendering.
One of the reasons we're keeping the image count to ten at the moment is because no matter how fast we serve them, there are issues with local connections and machines and these can be pretty big images.
We know Journal style is not yet perfect. We value these comments and will continue to improve the algorithm and the feature set as we see fit.
Again, at the most popular resolutions, with a maximized browser, landscape images work really well. When we start messing with the browser size (really wide and short, really tall and skinny, etc), things start to get a little grey. It's tough to know what a user expects to see in those cases. Some don't mind scrolling, some do. I believe that over time, with enough data, we can perfect it through algorithm tweaks or feature enhancements.
It will be interesting to see how the community feels on this issue.
-Brian
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Midway down this page:
http://www.ruama.com/gallery/8628783_8E7i4/10
You can see through the semi-transparency of the lightbox that it jumps back to the top the instant the lightbox appears rather than when you close it.
(This was in reference to the behavior of videos in Journal style)
I think we do the right thing bringing up the size that always fits, but for plenty of people it's a pain because they always have to make a second click to see the size they want. It makes me crazy when I'm on my laptop because I'm in the camp that hates the size we deliver.
The new journal view doesn't give you any options. Perhaps the eventual solution for journal is to offer a "bigger" and "smaller" control to influence the bias (fill horizontally vs. fit vertically). I'm not sure the extra complication is worth it, but it would stop the debate about what the ONE single solution has to be to meet the needs of the different camps of people that legitimately want it to work differently.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Just have to aim the mouse.
My Website index | My Blog
I am a bit confused, I have made no changes to my page in many months and I went on to check my photos and the mainpage slideshow is messed up. The photos are only showing a portion of the original and they are increased in size. Can someone tell me what is going on?
www.chrisdenhamphotography.com
Thanks
Denham
www.chrisdenhamphotography.com
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Malte
Optional is good, I certainly wouldn't complain...
Malte
Malte
This was on 1280x800, 1280x1024 is a whole other ball o' wax, quite nice lookin'...
Malte
Malte
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Malte
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
http://malte.smugmug.com/gallery/7031912_mdUPb
More? Post in customizing and we'll help there, ok? Thanks!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
My interpretation is high-end shooters want their customers to see it pixel-perfect exactly as they cropped it. The viewer just thinks bigger is better.
We err on the side of the shooter because they are our subscribers.
I don't know what has happened but my slideshow is not showing the photos in their proper format. Some of the pictures are fine, but others are cut off, enlarged to 3x their normal size, and formatted in a square box. I have done no changes to my site in quite some time, I want to keep it the way it was.
Can someone help me with this mystery?
www.chrisdenhamphotography.com
www.chrisdenhamphotography.com
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://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1160074#post1160074
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
Is this also the cause of the problem I'm seeing with my site, logged earlier today - Photos missing from display, using custom sizes?
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com