• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Feedback on a photography portfolio design

G

GoingUp

Lifer
Site will be a combination of flash and HTML. Flash for the galleries, HTML for everything else.

Many of you have seen my pics before, but I am interested to see what you all think of the site layout.

http://www.cheddarcheesemedia.com/photography/

Edit for updates: The flash gallery UI is now done. Now all I need to do is add more photos to the different galleries. I have enlarged the thumbnails for a second time and am unwilling to go any bigger. I think 75 x 50 should be plenty big. The originals were 40x26. The new ones are 260% bigger.

I also slowed down the thumbnails for those of you who said they were too fast.
 
I like it much better than the flash galleries that use annoying transitions between photos. I'd prefer to see the thumbnail strip at the bottom slightly bigger so the photos are somewhat recognizable, but I like the layout.

There are two problems with the page that I noticed. The first is that the links to different sections at the top don't work (except for "home). I assume that you just haven't configured them yet, but I thought I'd mention it just in case. 🙂

Second, it appears that either my browser or your gallery software does not like vertically oriented photos. None of them will display on my computer. The gallery doesn't return an error, it just acts as if those thumbnails are not links to photos. It might be my browser, but I don't have anything installed other than IE6 so I can't test it with other browsers right now.
 
Originally posted by: Fardringle
I'd prefer to see the thumbnail strip at the bottom slightly bigger so the photos are somewhat recognizable, but I like the layout.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but wouldn't have a problem if you had the thumbs enlarge (x2 maybe) when you mouse over. I think I've seen it in simpleviewer. That way you wouldn't lose any more space to the main image display area.

Otherwise I like it. Loads fast which is my main concern when viewing images.
 
Originally posted by: Fardringle
Second, it appears that either my browser or your gallery software does not like vertically oriented photos. None of them will display on my computer. The gallery doesn't return an error, it just acts as if those thumbnails are not links to photos. It might be my browser, but I don't have anything installed other than IE6 so I can't test it with other browsers right now.
Click to expand...

vertical image didnt load on my ffx either

Originally posted by: arrfep
Originally posted by: Fardringle
I'd prefer to see the thumbnail strip at the bottom slightly bigger so the photos are somewhat recognizable, but I like the layout.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but wouldn't have a problem if you had the thumbs enlarge (x2 maybe) when you mouse over. I think I've seen it in simpleviewer. That way you wouldn't lose any more space to the main image display area.

Otherwise I like it. Loads fast which is my main concern when viewing images.
Click to expand...

doesnt load fast for me at all. actually there is a huge wait between clicking on the thumbnail and the picture showing up

Also, add a next and previous button/arrow or something. Makes navigation a lot easier than having to click on each individual thumbnail.
 
The menu bar at the top of the page doesn't work yet. And the portrait pictures don't work, although I plan to fix that tonight. I will have to see about the thumbnails. What resolutions are you running your screens at? Maybe when the mouse rolls over they get bigger. Good idea about the next and back button as well, although not quite sure how to configure that yet....

Some things to think about, thanks 🙂

And the pics are all at 100% quality, which is why they take a while to load. They can be up to 350K in size. Is everyone getting the loadbar at least?
 
Well I just checked my site in IE and Firefox.

In IE7, you get the white loadbar showing progress. In Firefox 3.0.4, you never get the loadbar. I'm totally baffled why, even though both have the same Flash 10 plugin....
 
My desktop resolution is 1280x1024. The pictures take about 2-5 seconds to load on my cable connection, which is plenty fast enough in my opinion. The thumbnails do not change size or react in any way to a "mouseover" for me. I do get the white loading bar when pictures are loading. I'm using IE6 with Sun Java version 1.6.03 (I hate IE7 and I've been too lazy to update Java recently).
 
I'm using FF 3.0.4 and I get a status bar. It's right above the thumbnail display area. I agree with others, that the thumbnails should be larger, I've seen the pictures before....and its still hard to see the pictures. I would break the thumbnail into its own area as well.
 
the thumbnail area needs to have a bigger dead zone. It scrolls too fast and it's very hard to make it stop moving.

ps. Great pictures btw!!
 
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
The thumbnails have no mouseover effect. Do you think they should?
Click to expand...

No. You mentioned earlier that you thought they might get bigger with a mouseover, so I wanted to let you know that they don't. Keep it that way. 😉

The size increase you mentioned in your edit of the original post sounds pretty good. Unfortunately, it looks like you accidentally edited out the link to the gallery so I'm not able to see the change...
 
Well... can you do something like automatic resizing of the images to fit any screen? I'm running on a 1024 x 600 screen (ultra mobile PC) and the pictures are too tall and don't fit in my screen. I mean, there could be people looking at your work on netbooks and stuff.

And yes, thumbnails should be larger. They move too fast and I feel like I'm in an FPS. I've never really liked photo websites that have me chasing thumbnails as they auto scroll around.
 
I hate 800x600. And how many people realistically own netbooks? Still, it's probably something I should look into... grrrrrrr.
 
I like the new thumbnail size.

I have to admit that I was confused about other peoples' complaints regarding the thumbnails moving too fast since they did not move at all for me on the original version except when I clicked on the arrows on either end. They scroll automatically now as soon as the mouse is anywhere on the thumbnail bar, and I definitely agree that it should not do that if you are able to remove it. Simply having the scroll arrows on the ends is enough (and it's not annoying). 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Fardringle
I like the new thumbnail size.

I have to admit that I was confused about other peoples' complaints regarding the thumbnails moving too fast since they did not move at all for me on the original version except when I clicked on the arrows on either end. They scroll automatically now as soon as the mouse is anywhere on the thumbnail bar, and I definitely agree that it should not do that if you are able to remove it. Simply having the scroll arrows on the ends is enough (and it's not annoying). 🙂
Click to expand...

But if the scroll arrows are on the ends, then you lose the next and previous buttons.
 
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
But if the scroll arrows are on the ends, then you lose the next and previous buttons.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant. I like the arrows (previous/next buttons). I don't like the automatic mouse-over scrolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top