your page layout is driving us mad...

<p>We love Photo.net and have subscribed for a while. But the layout seems designed to drive people crazy. The key issues are:<br>

1. The full picture doesn't show in a browser due to the vertical layout and you always have to scroll up/down to get most of it (unless viewed on a giant screen, but laptops and tablets are doomed). There's plenty of room on the sides - please move navigation to the sides so it doesn't eat up the precious vertical space. <strong>PLEASE</strong>.<br>

2. The next/prvious arrows when viewing an album always drift depending on the size of the picture. Stick them on top so you don't have to move the mouse and can leave it in one place and click it to get to the next pictures. <br>

Make the best place for photos on the web even better. It's not that hard.<br>

Thanks for considering these heartfelt suggestions.<br>

<br />Teddy</p>

<p>Even though I now have a huge monitor, I do visit the site frequently on my laptop. Neither now nor before, do I find the layout that awkward. Most images are horizontal (landscape), and is it that hard to scroll a little?</p>

<p>Perhaps your screen magnification is too high? Look at your browser settings.<br /> On a Mac, Command-'-' will shrink the screen a little.</p>

<p>Here's one vote for leaving well-enough alone.</p>

<p>If something has to be moved, then stuff those 'tweet" 'social' etc. buttons off to the side or lose them altogether, (says grumpy old man).</p>

<p>As JDM says, it's fine. Don't mess with it.<br /><br />Now, I can pick a bone or two with the mobile version of the pages, with distort images to fit on the screen's aspect ratio. Which is really naughty!</p>

<p>I always enlarge my screen and I see everything especially that great blach minolta.<br>

WOW. I do view -zoom-zzom text only in Mozilla<br>

to make it easier to read posts. This helps read without scrolling left to right<br>

It's my old eyes</p>

<p>1. I can see how that would be frustrating. But I use the site all day every day on a 15" laptop. There is no issue viewing vertical images in the gallery on my screen. I also regularly use an ipad and a iphone and do not have trouble with either. As has been mentioned, are you sure that you haven't set your browser to zoom in?</p>

<p>2. This has come up before, and I have talked with the programmers about it in the past. The short answer is that, despite your "not that hard" prediction, it would actually be really complicated to fix and we keep having more crucial projects to work on. Perhaps I will bring it up to them again at some point.</p>

<p>If you're using Windows, Ctrl+ and Ctrl- lets you zoom in and out dynamically. If you're using a mouse, Ctrl-Scroll lets you do the same. </p>

<p>I agree with Josh.</p>

<p>I use P.Net on computer and on iPhone(mostly). And the layout is rather good. The only exception is when someone posts a gallery image much larger than 1000x1000 and messes up the formatting of the page a bit. Which is what you are describing.</p>

<p>I would rather the user be able to post as large an image as they feel necessary, and me deal with the previous and next arrows being misplaced, than having the poster not be able to post the size that they feel is necessary to convey their photo. Besides, the preview images are all the same size, unless the posted image is smaller than the 680x680 preview size.</p>

<p>The largest photo I will post is 1000x1000 to help prevent the formatting errors you are objecting to. And I feel that should be an individual restriction, rather than a board restriction.</p>

<p>If you don't like the formatting being messed up by large gallery photos, then don't click on them to reveal the full resolution. That would be my take on it.</p>

<p><strong>Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. </strong><br /> For full disclosure, my laptop screen resolution is 1440x900. On my 30" desktop monitors, there's no problem. They are hard to carry around.<br /> Indeed, this issue affects most of us who are interested in portraits and the human form (mostly vertical) and want to experience the compositions as intended without having artificial cropping by the browser layout or manual adjustments. I will try to attach a typical example, followed by what the full photograph looks like.<br /> Yes, -zoom, F11, etc. help a bit but these are patches for a design issue that the curators might want to revisit.<br /> Please consider the example uploaded as a possible layout that maximizes our ability to +1 the photo (should be good PR for photo.net) and see relevant info without having to pan. Perhaps toggling the header off/on could be another feature available to members.<br /> Regarding the next/previous arrows, is there a keystroke that can be assigned to them?</p>

<p>You are having issues on 1440x900? My secondary monitor at work is 1024x768 and I never have issues. How many toolbars are you running at the top? I ask, because I have seen some people's IE and FF where they lose half their screen real estate to these toolbars. In that instance, it is more the user's fault than the sites.</p>

<p>As a web developer/designer, the best you can do is design for a few generalizations. And since resolutions of monitors have such a wide disparity, it's almost impossible to accommodate them all. Now CSS3 has opened the door to doing this a bit better, but for a site such as this, it won't do them much good until they do a complete redesign. And with support for legacy browsers, such as IE7 and IE8 still needed, CSS3 is less of an option. You can use some of it with proper fallbacks, but you are still limited.</p>

<p>Oh, and CTRL+0 sets your font size to normal.</p>

<p>Apparently only one image is allowed, so here's the suggested layout which I believe can be accomplished in the current framework of the site...</p><div></div>

<p>Nothing cured by design. Josh and gang would have to start restricting a max height on images, which they might already do. I would say that if they are, and it is in direct relation to the vertical resolution of the screen the person is viewing with, they would need to have a larger "padding" in their calculations. Flickr and others work because they have a much more conservative max dimensions enforced on displayed images.</p>

<p>I was not suggesting restricting vertical dimensions - just don't WASTE precious vertical space and if you must, put it on the bottom... A small step for mankind...</p>

<p>And a huge step backward for usability and branding. You read a page in the shape of an E, which means across the header first, then the side, then the content body, then the footer. By using the E principle, which is ingrained in everyone of western culture at this point, you maximize their ability to use the site. </p>

<p>And don't forget, the forums are as much a part of, if not more so, the site. I would hazard a guess they are used more than the galleries.</p>