You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Juicebox v1.5.1 Released!
Search options (Page 2 of 2)
Hmmmm. Did you look at the link I posted? That site also has navigation and other elements superimposed on top of the image, but the functionality of pinch zoom and direct access to the images is unimpeded. I bet there's a way around this.
I understand the caption workaround, but I don't use captions and I imagine a lot of other people chose not to as well. And the Open Image buton is not intuitive. Users won't automatically know they have to use that to download or hotlink an image. If I have to include written instructions somewhere on how to use the web interface, this strikes me as a useability fail.
Steven wrote:@paulr
It would also be nice if it were possible to download or copy the link of an image without opening up an expanded view window. I know virtually nothing about HTML5 ... is this locking of the image intrinsic or is it a feature that can be turned on or off?
This is due to the fact that the gallery is displayed dynamically using JavaScript and XML and the images are not simply displayed on the page using traditional <img> tags.
One way to achieve what you are looking to do would be to link directly to the images within your gallery's captions.
If creating or editing your gallery with JuiceboxBuilder-Pro, this can be done automatically by selecting 'Images -> Captions -> Use Link URL' from the drop-down menu at the top. The caption fields for all images will then be filled with links to the images so that users can right-click and save the image directly.
How is it done on other responsive sites? Like this one: http://flakphoto.com/exhibition/looking … d/#photo-2? I hope there's a good reason for coding the way that it's done now, because this strikes me as an unfortunate drawback.
I'm also very surprised that the images don't support pinch zooming in iOS devices. This is a shame. What would it take to allow this?
Thank you Steve.
Another option it would be nice to have control over is the shading of the selected thumbnail. I find the current setting, the ghosted outer section, to be odd and a bit confusing.
It would also be nice if pixel dimensions (of thumbnails, at least) would be recorded in presets.
The Juicebox main image does have a drop shadow by default. To modify the drop-shadow CSS, check the themeing section here: http://juicebox.net/support/theming/ The main image drop shadow is defined by the ".jb-dt-main-frame .jb-dt-main-image" entry.
.jb-dt-main-frame .jb-dt-main-image {
-moz-box-shadow: 0px 0px 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, .4);
-webkit-box-shadow: 0px 0px 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, .4);
box-shadow: 0px 0px 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, .4);
border-color: White;
}
Can you tell us which value(s) to change if we want to completely eliminate the drop shadow? Is drop shadow control going to be incorporated into the graphical interface?
Also, on the Juicebox site, the link showing how to get the software to use a custom theme doesn't seem to work. Can you point me to that information?
Got it, thanks Steven. I'm actually glad it's implemented like this, but I didn't see it documented anywhere.
The images in my gallery look crisp at a wide range of scalings in Safari and Chrome (which seems like magic), but they look blurry at most scalings in Firefox. The image quality is fine when it's expanded to full size with the "open" button.
I'm assuming this is a firefox problem with the way Juicebox renders the responsive images.
Any fixes in the works from firefox, or workarounds from Juicebox?
A sample gallery that exhibits this problem noticeably: www.paulraphaelson.com/wilderness
Whether I choose a quality of 80 or 60, the final size of the image jpegs is identical. It is also identical to the size of the original file. There is no visible difference between any of these versions. Am I missing something?
It would also be nice if it were possible to download or copy the link of an image without opening up an expanded view window. I know virtually nothing about HTML5 ... is this locking of the image intrinsic or is it a feature that can be turned on or off? I want it to be straightforward for people to hot link to images, and don't like the idea of requiring a (not very intuitive) extra step and an extra icon.
I would love to have more control of the placement and behavior of the navigation overlays. I have them turned off entirely now, because I find it very distracting to have arrows superimposed on the image. I realize that they vanish when the mouse pointer is removed from the image area, but a user clicking through a web gallery tends to keep the pointer in one place so they can just keep clicking.
I think the best option would be to have the arrows to the immediate left and right of the image, rather than superimposed. Another option would be to have a much smaller activation area that makes the arrows visible.
I also plan to edit the arrows to make a more compact, unobtrusive graphic ... I appreciate the ability to do this, but it would be great if there were a small library of icons available as built-in option.
Posts found: 26 to 34 of 34