bdighe Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 Why there is so much of wasted space on the page which show single image? There is plenty of space on both side also the navigation buttons are so big that they take close to 20% of the page width. Unfortunately only 50% of the width is available to the image. It makes the panoramas look so dull. I have seen many member saying "view in large" in their postings. Suggestions: - Please use the whole width of the page. - Please make those previous/next image button smaller and let image grow in width. I am attaching an image which will show that how Picasa shows the same image so much better. Please fix it! Regards, - Bharat<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trunfio Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 The page width of just under 1000 pixels or thereabouts is meant to work on standard monitors. The previous and next image buttons are wonderful. As they draw the user into the photographer's work and entice you to click to see more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdighe Posted July 21, 2008 Author Share Posted July 21, 2008 I agree to you about the page width, My screen resolution was bit higher, but other web sites gracefully handles the higher resolution (check the attached image). About the buttons, you can always move them to top or bottom and provide more width for the image. Right now these buttons take too much of width. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trunfio Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 If you click on the image, it gives you the larger view and the buttons switch to top and bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_stemberg Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 ...and unfortunately, that's when often, the word gracefully does not apply. Depending on the dimensions of the 'larger view', the page design behind looks quite clumsy and ill-fitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_hoffmann Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Set your screen resolution to 800x600 and see if you have the same issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trunfio Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Good point mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 What photographer uses 800x600? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Photo.net has to be set to work with a great variety of screen sizes, monitor resolutions, and internet connection speeds. If you have a nice large monitor, a high powered graphics card and a high speed internet connection, then you are a lucky person. Not all of our members do. And we have to make the site just as available to them as we do to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdighe Posted July 21, 2008 Author Share Posted July 21, 2008 One data point http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp Most of the people (48%) today use 1024x768 resolutions. And a significant number (38%) uses bit higher like 1280x1024. Only 8% people use 800x600. In my opinion designing screen such for lower resolution is backward looking. The way LCD monitors are becoming cheaper, you will hardly find people using anything lesser than 1280x1024. Do you really think the photo.net users who use state of art expensive equipments, who use expensive softwares to tune their images, would be using any less sophisticated monitors? I really doubt that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 <i>"Do you really think the photo.net users who use state of art expensive equipments, who use expensive softwares to tune their images, would be using any less sophisticated monitors? I really doubt that."</i> <p> Well I guess you would know more than me about who uses photo.net. After all, that's not my job or anything. <p> Besides, your statement makes no sense. Photo.net is not designed for 800x600. As was previously stated, the page width is set as just under 1000pix and designed for a 1024 monitor setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trunfio Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 The width of the photo.net pages is 975 pixels. This is in line with what W3C has listed. The alternative is to have no page width (i.e., width =100%). but this causes other problems. I actually copied photo.net's page widths for use on MY webpages. Go photo.net! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdighe Posted July 21, 2008 Author Share Posted July 21, 2008 Yes width of the page is 975 pixels and I understand the reason being most of the standard monitors are 1024 pixel wide. But why the image width is limited to only 680 pixels. I can see that from the html source of the page. The huge navigation buttons on the right and left side of the page takes close to 150 pixels each. These buttons can be easily moved to the top of the image (similar to what picasa does, check the image I have attached). It will provide more space to the image which I guess is more important than those buttons. I am sorry, I may be beating a dead horse here but I believe such small things can make huge impact on the usability of this great website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 While some number of people may not like the current icons, gallery image views are up 15% since they were added. That's 15% more sets of eyes on your images. So we aren't really interested in getting rid of the buttons completely or making them too much harder to use. Given how important views and critiques are to most users on the site, I would say a lot of people would agree with me. But we are looking at ways that we can retain that high usage of the buttons, but make them less distracting to the people who dislike them. I'm sure the answer will be a compromise for everyone, as things like this frequently are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trunfio Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Josh. I am so glad I don't have your job. Customer service guru you are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 White space is part of page design. Stuffing information on a page so it runs margin to margin isn't aesthetically pleasing. 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