mondiani Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I do not like the new folder layout it is less easy to read. Actually it was the best point of all this website. Allowing to get a maximun information in a quick glimpse. Now I got only 3 pictures in a line, unecessary info such the title of the picture, less readable typo... pfff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Interesting. I think it's great. It organizes images with most recent images first, so people with dial up will see the most recent images in a folder first. The information is still there just like before. By default the details are tuned off and then you had to hit the link to view the rating and view info. I think it is really nice... One thought... Could there be a way to give comments to the entire folder? I think that would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micheleberti Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I like it! It's faster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 It is faster to download not to read!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Besides the title, wasn't everything else there before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Not sure what you are talking about. There is nothing to read on this page unless you ask for the "Details". That is the same as before, except it was called "Rating and Size info" before. As for details, this is displayed in the same size font as before. The change is that we specify sans-serif italics, instead of just italics. So, it sounds like your complaint comes down to the fact that when displaying "rating and size info", you prefer the italics in your default browser font to the sans-serif italics. As for displaying only 3 photos across: they are displayed elastically with no fixed grid. If you want more than 3 across widen your window. In the default mode where just photos are being displayed, the photos are more densely packed than before, actually. So, again, I think you must be complaining only about the "Details" mode, which is not the default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Brian is it possible to put "number of comments" in that info for each image? Maybe remove 'ratings'. Might put a bit more emphasis on comments? Would it be to data base intensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 Exactly I'm complaigning about the details mode. I set my windows at maximun size and I still get only 3 pictures by row. Maybe because the title... I'm the only one that find it less readable than before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Well, it is elastic, and on my window, the full screen accomodates 4 across. There is a tad more white space around the images in "details" mode than in the default view with no details -- so that the text "details" don't crowd each other. Maybe that is why your screen now only accomodates 3 across in details mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 I'm using IExplorer version 6.0....<br> Have you another browser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Mondiani, what screen rez are you running? I am at 1600x1200 and am getting 5 across. At 1024x768 I get 3. Is that the res you are at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 yes sir it is that high my laptop screen can go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 1024x768 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 In the details mode, I think the photos are 256 pixels wide. I don't remember whether there is any margin on top of that, but probably not. On a 1024 pixel wide display you nominally have enough room for four wide; but the scroll bars and window borders are going to eat some of your screen width, and maybe you have some kind of vertical navigation thingie in your browser as well. So, you only have enough space for 3 pictures wide in the details mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan colman Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Brian, I like the new lay out. I find it a large improvement compared to the previous format. Congrats.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arashdejkam Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I like the reveresed order the grey background and flowing layout, but there is a bug: when the thumbnails are loading if I click on 'Details' the loading stops! (IE 6.0.26) that is very annoying, I have to wait for the whole page to load before clicking 'Details'. also I like to be able to bookmark my folder with details as before (sending parameter &ratings=true) it doesn't work anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 The bug isn't in the HTML for the folder page; it seems to be in your browser. And other browsers don't do this. Consider getting yourself a less buggy browser that is being actively supported by the vendor. I use Opera most of the time on both Linux and Windows, but these days there are quite a few standards-compliant browsers available. Of course, IE is still what most people have, for some reason, but a large number of web developers, maybe even the majority, have given up standing on their heads to work around all the IE bugs, as long as pages basically display in IE, and I guess I'm one of them. On showing details, the information is in the html file. It toggles into Details mode instantly without any server interaction at all with one click. The &ratings=true thing on the old version required another round trip to the server. Not being able to bookmark it in "Details" mode, and having to do an extra click, seems to be a small price to pay for the speed improvement for the majority of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arashdejkam Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Brian! Me too used to use Opera in Windows and Conqueror in Linux and was a fanatic W3C fan, but after receiveing lots of complaints from visitors of my websites (not actually mine, my clients') ended up installing 3 versions of IE on my system and checking my html,css,js pages in each version.<br>One of my websites has about 1000 unique visitors per day well distributed around the world definitely not comparable to a giant like photo.net but my stats page gives a good idea of how popular IE is, 92.77% of the visitor use IE! there I have to answer a few hundreds of people, how can you answer to tens of thousands of complaints (stated or unstated) here?<br>Maybe this particular problem only happens in my particular verison of IE (6.0.26) but generally what I want to say is that in a highly user oriented website like photo.net I don't think it is a good idea to ask majority of users to use what the developer uses.<br><br>sincerely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Well about 80% of photo.net users are using IE, probably mostly from inertia. (Most people using IE don't even realize that Microsoft stopped development of it for almost a year, although they did announce a couple of months ago that they were reconstituting the IE development team.) I think people should change to reasonable browsers. I'm not optimistic. And of course, I try to make things work as well as I can in IE. But even if you can get something to work in one version of IE does not mean that it will work in some other version, or even the same numbered version on a different flavor of Windows. And that is before accounting for all the myriad add-ins that people have. So, at this point, I design for Opera/Mozilla/etc, do a quick check that it is readable and not too damaged in the IE versions that I happen to have, and deploy it. Usually this works out fine, because I don't do exotic stuff anyway. But if some IE problem turns up, I plan to berate them for not having a reasonable browser. If enough people report that something isn't working and it seems to be impacting traffic, I'll fix it. It's worked so far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 This is alright now I also get 4 pictures in a row. I didn't change anything though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I changed it. JUST FOR YOU. The photos in the details mode have a little less padding so that they will fit 4 across on your pathetic low-resolution monitor. If you have a spare $25.00, send it in for a subscription, to thank me, unless you'd like to save up for a bigger monitor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 My request was reasonable :)<br> I had lost the most precious feature of this website (the ability to view easily many many pictures) Feature that other photo websites fail to provide. <p> I'm pretty sure that 90% photo.net users have 1024x768 or even more pathetic res. And nearly 99% laptop users are in the same case...<br> That said I have in mind to subscribe pretty soon (september to be more precise). Or maybe earlier depending the need I had for the subscriber features (comparing quickly a set of photos up to 200 photos) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom t Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I'm with Dave N. on a feature to comment on a folder. That said, I'm glad to see some changes. May not agree with all of them but I'm not going to participate in silly discussions - you simply can't please everyone. Thx for trying stuff, Brian. -- Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrellwhittle Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Brian I also like the new layout overall even though the grey background spoils the shadows i have added to my images so far. The decision to have the most recent image load first is a definite plus. I recall elsewhere some mention of having the facility to set how the folders display to a degree. Is this true and if so when might it happen and what features might be available? I also agree with Dave N that having the number of comments displayed as well as the ratings in the details section would be nice also. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viv1 Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Brian, generally speaking, I like the new layout. It took some time to get used to it, which of course is normal, but now I can live with it. I do have some suggestions though, but of course i don't know if they all make sense :-) - as the user can set his preferences regarding the roll menus, perhaps you allow him to set his preference for what appears first, i.e. details or comments? This shouldn't be too hard, since the info is already in the html (well done btw, changing from details to ratings etc. now happens very quickly) - is there a way to show not only the photo, but also the previous comments when conributing a comment? this would be very handy when commenting on a comment. - the only thing i don't like is the fact that there is no space between the different options (detials, critique, ...). it may be graphically nice, but it's not very user friendly, confusing is a better word :-) - perhaps also interesting is to keep the possibility to enter ratings and comments in one page. Just suggestions, I'm curious what you think. Vince Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now