We have moved to GitHub Issues
Created by Phill Hodgkinson 26 Nov 2013, 15:14:43 Updated by Shannon Deminick 11 Dec 2013, 07:05:53
I saw this bug report http://issues.umbraco.org/issue/U4-2983 that was closed as it was called a "design decision" however I would have to disagree with closing it and also say that it is a very poor design decision.
I have a number of images in a folder and their "actual sizes" are only 100px x 50px but in the media viewer the "thumbnails" are displayed at 480px wide, almost 5x their actual size. An image should never be scaled up and in any kind of file/media browser they should be scaled down to a thumbnail size so they are manageable. This is a design standard that you can see in action in any major operating system (i.e. Windows, OSX). Can you imagine if you were trying to browse a couple hundred files on your OS and the thumbnails were 500px wide? I know there are a lot of changes in the new UI and we have to "get used to it" but I really have to say your UX designers are wrong here, this is definitely a bug or incorrect design decision. If the UX designers have poor eyesight and can't make out an image from a 150x150 thumb, maybe have a 500x500 version appear on mouse over?
Great feedback. We'll have to agree to disagree for now. However, we'll make sure to not upscale small images and look into how we can make them fit the design.
Whenever this issue comes up for UX review, perhaps provide a slider for sizing the images, ala OS X's Finder (that remembers the last setting so personal preference can be maintained)? I like the new big thumbs in v7.0 when a folder has only a handful of images but as the image count goes up smaller thumbs are more helpful for content editors I find.
Hi there, thought I would show what I see on my screen next to a suggested improvement (IMO). We can always agree to disagree but I just really fail to understand the logic, usability or improvement in such massive thumbnails. Please explain if you can, maybe I'm missing something.
No wonder you're disappointed. It's obviously the new calculation algorithm that's failing - normally photos aren't that big and the view is designed to specifically use the whole screen real estate ala Flickr or google+. I'll post an example tomorrow of how it's supposed to look and we'll try to reproduce.
Thanks Niels, we're probably thinking the same thing regarding UX. As they say a picture is worth 1000 words. Obviously not critical as it's still usable but looking forward to seeing what it should be like.
I just noticed, if you upload images to the root level, they are forced to 100% of the window width.
Yup, have been working on this yesterday and will work on it some more today. The last row (which could be the first row if you don't have many images) will scale the images quite poorly if there's only a couple. I'm going to look at overhauling the algorithm that produces this grid today.
I have however already fixed the issue of server side thumbnails being created that are larger than the original images - this no longer happens.
I've fixed the sizing and refactored the algorithm that handles this layout. It looks the same but takes the sizing into account and will ensure to never scale an image up.
Assignee: Shannon Deminick
Backwards Compatible: True
Affected versions: 7.0.0
Due in version: 7.0.1