This question is answered. Helpful answers available: 2. Correct answers available: 1.


Permlink Replies: 32 - Pages: 3 [ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ] - Last Post: 25 Jul 21, 13:23 Last Post By: JeffTucker Threads: [ Previous | Next ]
romaya

Posts: 27
Registered: 10-Jan-2016
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 22 Jul 21, 19:45   in response to: romaya in response to: romaya
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
An inconsistency was found with the aspect ratio of portrait images in Tiger Grid mode at certain screen widths
romaya

Posts: 27
Registered: 10-Jan-2016
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 22 Jul 21, 19:56   in response to: JeffTucker in response to: JeffTucker
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Another inconsistency is shown in your example image aa (with the fat Brunel) Mr Tucker - the second row with three landscape images has an unnecessary vertical space around the images. This did not happen in Tiger v2.
JeffTucker

Posts: 7,667
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 22 Jul 21, 20:03   in response to: romaya in response to: romaya
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
romaya wrote:
Another inconsistency is shown in your example... the second row with three landscape images has an unnecessary vertical space around the images.

It appears that in the Grid layout, all the thumbnail boxes are the same size. It doesn't matter whether a row is all landscape, or a mix of landscape and portrait.
romaya

Posts: 27
Registered: 10-Jan-2016
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 22 Jul 21, 20:08   in response to: JeffTucker in response to: JeffTucker
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
OK - if that is the case I guess I can live with it, even though it would be neater if there was a "close fit grid" option where the rows could each be a separate height.

However the AR and cropping problems should be addressed.
Laza

Posts: 2,267
Registered: 6-Sep-2005
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 23 Jul 21, 10:24   in response to: romaya in response to: romaya
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
If the thumbnail boxes were allowed to match the landscape photos, then it would be 2 unknown factors - the thumbnail height and the caption height - which the flex layout cannot handle. Or it can, but it results in jumping caption positions, which looked worse than having same-height thumbs.
Laza

Posts: 2,267
Registered: 6-Sep-2005
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 23 Jul 21, 11:08   in response to: JeffTucker in response to: JeffTucker
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I cannot reproduce this error in normal browsers. Please note, the embedded browser has a crappy implementation of flex layout, so it's not appropriate to test what the visitors will see.
Laza

Posts: 2,267
Registered: 6-Sep-2005
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 23 Jul 21, 11:36   in response to: Laza in response to: Laza
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I see now - this must be a bug in FireFox. Fortunately, a "widh: auto;" can fix this. I don't know why browser programmers don't keep in mind that keeping the aspect ratio constant is what the users possibly always want.
JeffTucker

Posts: 7,667
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 23 Jul 21, 15:12   in response to: Laza in response to: Laza
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Attachment chromeBrunel.png (554.0 KB)
Chrome does exactly the same thing (screenshot), but yes, a width:auto; seems to cure it when using the grid layout.

Still don't like the cropping that occurs with portrait mode images in the masonry layout, however.
JeffTucker

Posts: 7,667
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 23 Jul 21, 15:21   in response to: Laza in response to: Laza
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Laza wrote:
If the thumbnail boxes were allowed to match the landscape photos, then it would be 2 unknown factors - the thumbnail height and the caption height - which the flex layout cannot handle. Or it can, but it results in jumping caption positions, which looked worse than having same-height thumbs.

Whether you're using table, ordered list, inline-block, or flex, the same old problems always come back to haunt us. ;)

If you knew that a user would never produce a caption that was more than one line, it would be easy, but we have users who want to display the entire summer schedule for the Rhätischebahn in that caption.
Laza

Posts: 2,267
Registered: 6-Sep-2005
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 23 Jul 21, 15:28   in response to: JeffTucker in response to: JeffTucker
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Yes, it's hard to make the portrait images properly sized. The problem is the flex layout adds an equal amount to every thumbnail in a row, regardless of the orientation. This results in a relatively bigger distortion on portrait images than on landscapes. Naturally, I could have written a javascript library to manage it better, but then an initial jump-around would happen after every page load, and I'm afraid writing my own library might trigger loads of further incompatibilities. I went down this route with Photoblogger's vertical masonry layout, and I'd prefer to avoid it in the future.
Laza

Posts: 2,267
Registered: 6-Sep-2005
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 23 Jul 21, 15:56   in response to: JeffTucker in response to: JeffTucker
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I made a new layout type now: "flexible grid", which is optimized to fit thumbnails but doesn't care about the caption positions.
JeffTucker

Posts: 7,667
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 23 Jul 21, 21:51   in response to: Laza in response to: Laza
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
In 3.3.0, the thumbnails are definitely better-behaved in all of the non-fixed shape varieties. :)

I'll leave it to the "heavy" Tiger users to let you know what they think. I'm just an occasional tester, so I don't push the skin to it limits.

Besides, I know of a collection of skins that all do these things much better. ;)
romaya

Posts: 27
Registered: 10-Jan-2016
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 24 Jul 21, 19:27   in response to: JeffTucker in response to: JeffTucker
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I am now using the new "flexible grid" option and the AR and cropping is much improved for the pages of thumbnail images - thank you very much Laca for release 3.3

It is a pity though that the built-in preview browser often gives a very different appearance to my firefox browser - it makes designing a layout very awkward.

Additionally, the behavious of the folder pages is still a bit odd. I am using the folowing Tiger settings...

Design/MaxPageWidth=No limit
Sections/Folder/Folder columns:5
Sections/Folder/Fixed shape thumbnails: NOT selected

With these settings, the cards holding the folder thumbnails can become very elongated vertically with unnecessary space if you alter the brwoser window width (here I mean a firefox browser window, not the built-in preview browser)

I have attached a jpg showing a firefox browser windoe at different widths A, B & C. In "A" ((wide browser windoe) there is empty padding left and right of the folder thumbnails, in "b" the thumbnails are tight and in "c" (narrow browser window) there is empty padding above and below the folder thumbnails. It seems that the height of each row of folders is constant and this is causing this effect. For a tight fit around the folder thumbnails the height of each row of folders should change as the browser window width changes.
Laza

Posts: 2,267
Registered: 6-Sep-2005
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 24 Jul 21, 20:01   in response to: romaya in response to: romaya
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
If you are using max. page width as "No limit" the skin has no idea how wide the folder thumbnails will be. It calculates with 1600px wide screen, therefore the final thumbnail image might be too narrow on an HD screen with a maximized browser. I'd better remove "no limit" as I think there's no point in having a page 1920px wide or even wider, but I see many users insist on this setting.

You should never use the built-in browser to preview modern skins, as that browser is some 10 years old, an abandoned piece of code. Just use Preferences / External browser, and jAlbum will show the preview right in a decent browser.
JeffTucker

Posts: 7,667
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: Continuing problems with Tiger v3
Posted: 24 Jul 21, 20:02   in response to: romaya in response to: romaya
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Attachment ss009152.png (21.1 KB)
romaya wrote:
It is a pity though that the built-in preview browser often gives a very different appearance to my firefox browser - it makes designing a layout very awkward.

David is exploring replacements for the integrated browser. But many of us simply don't use it, ever, because it is unreliable. I just do all my previewing in Firefox. It does mean that I have to remember to hit F5 to update the browser display (or even CTRL-F5 in some cases), but that's better than being misled by the integrated browser.
Legend
Forum admins
Helpful Answer
Correct Answer

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in all forums