4 ms·

you can actually adjust the compression settings in the script. I just have mine on the high end out of personal preference. On mobile it should load the mobil

by Jack000 11y ago

you can actually adjust the compression settings in the script. I just have mine on the high end out of personal preference. On mobile it should load the mobile-size version, which is much smaller than what you see on the desktop.

therealmarv 11y ago
yes, don't get me wrong. It looks beautiful on desktop and I wished everybody could have great internet speed. But I know from professional experiences that e.g. people from South Africa will hate your pages (1-2Mbit is good DSL there). I know I only complain... but I also see bad styling. Most people nowadays browse with mobile and your fonts are too small and unreadable there (I also know there is no easy solution together with the pictures alignment). Just saying... for people on desktop on good internet speed +1 but definitely not a solution which everybody should copy (even not photographers, there is a reason why thumbnail galleries exist, a good example is Google Photos)
- gknoy 11y ago
  You seem to have pretty clear ideas about how users with slow connections might want to experience this. Would you consider making a pull request with an alternate theme (there are two already included)? You could adjust the styling as you see fit, and so forth. Best of all, were you to actually use this, you could modify the compression settings and even the scaling in a way that fits your needs, even if you don't end up making a PR on the original. Looking at this, there are lots of ways where it feels like there could be things added to this to make it better -- a photo reorganizer, or something that would let you auto-tag / order photos from within the interface. Those kinds of things would be really neat, but are likely outside the scope of the (amazing) tool that Jack was kind enough to give us. If one were to go far enough down those rabbit-holes, pretty soon one would have rewritten it as a CMS. ;)

by Jack000 11y ago

therealmarv 11y ago

yes, don't get me wrong. It looks beautiful on desktop and I wished everybody could have great internet speed. But I know from professional experiences that e.g. people from South Africa will hate your pages (1-2Mbit is good DSL there). I know I only complain... but I also see bad styling. Most people nowadays browse with mobile and your fonts are too small and unreadable there (I also know there is no easy solution together with the pictures alignment). Just saying... for people on desktop on good internet speed +1 but definitely not a solution which everybody should copy (even not photographers, there is a reason why thumbnail galleries exist, a good example is Google Photos)

gknoy 11y ago
You seem to have pretty clear ideas about how users with slow connections might want to experience this. Would you consider making a pull request with an alternate theme (there are two already included)? You could adjust the styling as you see fit, and so forth. Best of all, were you to actually use this, you could modify the compression settings and even the scaling in a way that fits your needs, even if you don't end up making a PR on the original. Looking at this, there are lots of ways where it feels like there could be things added to this to make it better -- a photo reorganizer, or something that would let you auto-tag / order photos from within the interface. Those kinds of things would be really neat, but are likely outside the scope of the (amazing) tool that Jack was kind enough to give us. If one were to go far enough down those rabbit-holes, pretty soon one would have rewritten it as a CMS. ;)