Now you are even more critical than me.
Worked in Firefox for me.
Some thoughts:
1. The largest size viewable is often a little bit small. I wouldn't ever make a print purchase off of a such a small preview. A few images display in the 12x12 cm. range on my screen -- that would be the absolute smallest size for me to find useful (but, it is the largest of yours).
I think that the enlargement size was small so that the whole page can fit in a max widow size on 17" or bigger monitor without scrolling, and without a pop-up or another window. Ideally, I would like to see a web image's size to vary and fit a viewer's window size, but without having to scroll. I think that can be done, but I don't know how.
I often wonder how anyone can purchase a print only based on a web image, regardless of its size (unless the photog is well known). Those who purchased from my web images had at least seen my prints somewhere else before.
2. Can you get better control over what portion of the image is used for the square thumbnail? For many images the full image shares little resemblance to the square crop shown as a thumbnail. Even better would be slightly larger thumbnails that showed the whole image (if you want to keep them square just mount each image regardless of aspect ration on a square white backdrop).
Agreed. I also dislike cropped thumbnails. But cropped and same size thumbnails are easier to position.
3. I really like several other aspects of the interface. Namely, that you get a dog-ear on the images you have viewed and that you can see which images have finished loading/are still loading by watching the thumbnails.
Nice idea. Haven't seen any such galleries yet.
4. The text that says "close window when finished viewing" gets lost in your logo/nameplate in firefox (2.x). I would rather have the galleries open in the same window and have a back button. But, this isn't too bad.
Agreed. The text is unnecessary and only causes confusion.
All and all a very nice web site. On the top end of usability compared to most.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136397\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed. I think the site owner had thought through what the site is for, wanted it to be simple, and built it accordingly. Many would just dive in and end up with a mess.
There are plenty of photo web galleries, but really good ones are scarce. Not unlike the ratio between photogs and really good photogs. If you have favorites, let us know and see if we can pick on them as well.
