1. SmugMug may be a good option for you. There are many templates available for customizing your site, and you can get into the down and dirty details of CSS and javascript if you like (there is no bare metal access to the page code, so you have to do things in certain ways. The nice thing about SM is that they have a simplified version for mobile that has no flash (even if your main site does). There are many people at the forums at dgrin.com (SM's official forum) that are helpful and know how to customize very well.
2. One thing to think about is that even if someone is viewing on a 1280 wide monitor, they may not keep their browser windows full-screen. You may want to think about either a site that scales to window size or that has padding for when the window is expanded. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Mark C <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm working on re-doing my website this winter, hopefully completely nuking > the old site and replacing it with something new. (I plan to leave the blog > in place, but will probably update the skin.) It's been a while since I > re-did things. Any comments on the following would be appreciated: > > 1. Web Photo Gallery Software: For my last web update I used Photoshops web > gallery tool (now migrated to bridge) and lots of global search and replace > commands in Dreamweaver to customize and tweak the galleries. Wild and scary > stuff. I'd like to use a more simple approach this time - any suggestions > regarding web photo gallery tools? I don't mind paying for something good, > so I'm not just looking are freeware. I see that Mark Robers still lists Web > Album Generator on this website, it looks like the PUG uses JAblum. I was > thinking of going with a fancy flash gallery but at chatting with someone > recently I was told that flash was sooooo passe' and besides, iPhones can't > read it. Yee... what to do... > > 2. Image size: My current standard image size is 625 pixels wide or 500 > pixels high. That was pretty aggressive when I first started the website in > 1997... rather small by today's standards. I'm thinking of something like > 800 pixels wide for the standard view and click on that for a 1000 pixel > wide, in it's own screen, view. I looked at my user stats and found that the > top two screen resolutions were 1280 x 800 and 1024 x 768 - I think that the > dimensions I'm planning should work well with that. > > Any thoughts would be appreciated - > > Mark C. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
