Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 57
  1. #21
    Junior FancyOwls's Avatar
    Weasyl
    FancyOwls
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Montréal
    Gender
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Sax View Post
    Ooh I understand now what you are getting at! Thank you for having explained further.

    As a sidenote, I'm using for presenting my drawings in a neater way a tumblr blog with a theme (http://hasaportfolio.com/) which uses fixed size thumbnails, not squares but almost, and I do agree that I find this kind of look to be more professional.
    I still have the dilemma that I can't let people see the whole pic before clicking, but since I give my tumblr url to people who aren't usually used to see anthro porn pics, I kinda prefer they aren't shown a page full of dongs when they first visit it.
    I love how neat and tidy this look is on tumblr layouts but I hate that I can't choose what my preview is. With these kinds of forced thumbing layouts I always get a ton of empty space or like, the top of someone's head or something, since I do a lot of long compositional stuff. I do like the ability to make my own thumbs, I'm super anal about keeping my galleries looking nice. I keep my tumblr as a "blog" type layout (it's not my portfolio but rather just a sketch blog), but I have found some nice grid themes for portfolio presentation. Grid layouts can be easily cluttered and hard to look at, very easy to skip over stuff, but I prefer them to the alternative. Here's a really nice one I've had my eye on for a while: http://fixie.precrafted.com/ though I haven't had any real need for a proper portfolio on tumblr since I already have a website. It's a shame though, I really like this one.

  2. #22
    Regular Sax's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Sax
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by FancyOwls View Post
    I love how neat and tidy this look is on tumblr layouts but I hate that I can't choose what my preview is.
    Yes, I thought I could position which part of the pic the thumb would focus on, then after having posted my message, I had a look at my blog and realized that, no, it wasn't possible, I had spoken too quickly. (And I remembered I only got a genital-less main page because I carefully chose the posting order of the drawings)

    (and...I'll stop drifting too offtopic)

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by FancyOwls View Post
    All that said, I don't disagree with the problem from a casual browser's standpoint. I get that a "drive-by" viewer doesn't care about the artist's choices or presentation, that they want to be in and out as fast as possible with the least amount of effort, especially if they are here for porn. I think the easiest compromise would be to have a mini preview (say around 300, large thumb size on the longest dimension), appear upon mouse-over of a thumb. This is something a lot of shopping sites do and I think it works really well. The site gets to keep looking clean and artist get to maintain their galleries to look how they like, and browsers can easily hover and see if they give a shit or not without having to click on everything.

    edit: VIEW EXAMPLE OF THIS HERE
    I think this is a really great idea for in-gallery!

  4. #24
    Premium User Amber-Aria's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Amber-Aria
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by FancyOwls View Post
    All that said, I don't disagree with the problem from a casual browser's standpoint. I get that a "drive-by" viewer doesn't care about the artist's choices or presentation, that they want to be in and out as fast as possible with the least amount of effort, especially if they are here for porn. I think the easiest compromise would be to have a mini preview (say around 300, large thumb size on the longest dimension), appear upon mouse-over of a thumb. This is something a lot of shopping sites do and I think it works really well. The site gets to keep looking clean and artist get to maintain their galleries to look how they like, and browsers can easily hover and see if they give a shit or not without having to click on everything.

    edit: VIEW EXAMPLE OF THIS HERE
    I agree with FancyOwls and Ziblie! I know that thumbnail fixes are in the works right now, but I still support this suggestion. :3

  5. #25
    Regular Aster's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Aster
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    West
    Gender
    Ø
    Posts
    45
    I am also going to pool my support for the preview-on-hover idea. I was going to suggest that showing the artist's description on hover would encourage me to click the poorly-zoomed images more, as it would give me more context, but not all artist descriptions are helpful, and FancyOwls idea is far better (if more bandwidth intensive).

    I also would like to state that—as both an artist and a browser—I love the square thumbnails. They keep things nice and clean, and as long as they're used right, they look way better than having randomly shaped thumbs scattered across the page. It would be nice if they were a bit bigger though. But a larger-version-on-hover would fix the need for that as well.

    I'm interested in seeing how the thumbnail "problem" will be dealt with, whenever it is.
    don't mind me; i'm just insane

  6. #26
    Regular xarg's Avatar
    Weasyl
    xarg
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by FancyOwls View Post
    This is a thing artists like and are clearly using. This is a thing artists do with their portfolios and personal websites, it is a thing that professional use websites like cghub and conceptart.org do with their artist galleries. It's a feature we like. Otherwise they are free to let the site auto-crop the fuller version of their picture to show everything like in the first post. This is already a feature.
    The grid on CGHub's front page is made up of squares, yes, but it supports images taking up more than one square as either horizontal or vertical rectangles. In addition to this, not all images in the grid are squares of the same size. On other parts of the site, browsing for example, the square tumbnails are huge compared to what weasyl has at the moment, with the additional option to still browse them as sized down non-square versions of the original image instead. Taking all that into account, the concept of FORCING people into square thumbnails on the basis that "it's more professional" is quite moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aster View Post
    I also would like to state that—as both an artist and a browser—I love the square thumbnails. They keep things nice and clean, and as long as they're used right, they look way better than having randomly shaped thumbs scattered across the page. It would be nice if they were a bit bigger though. But a larger-version-on-hover would fix the need for that as well.
    The problem is not as much the squareness of the thumbnails anyway, it is the poorly cropped thumbnails. This would be easy to address by for example increasing the thumbnail size to something reasonable for an art site such as 150x150. Another way to aid people who dislike being mislead would be to implement an user option to mute custom thumbnails, using an automatically generated one comprising the full image instead, much like the option on InkBunny for example.

    Also keep in mind that the more information that you hide under hover gestures on the site, the less usable it inherently becomes on a mobile/touch interface device. It is extremely annoying to try to browse a site that relies on hover menus or other information hidden behind hovers, essentially crippling any usability for people browsing on phones and tablets.

    I would personally much rather see the UI being developed into a direction where things like the submission title and artist are not hidden behind a purely cosmetic wall of modal hovers, placing fancy glitter ahead of actual usability. Instead of only having the option to preview the image on hover, why not let the user decide what kind of a preview they want? Be it a square thumbnail, a sized down thumbnail made from the original image or something else. Just look at CGHub... In the browse mode you have not one, but FOUR different choices of preview in the listing.

  7. #27
    I'm probably in a minority of designer-types that actually like the way thumbnails function (both in terms of hover and how they're cropped), but I don't think I would be too bothered by having the system restricted to square full-image thumbnails.

    An idea that comes to mind is that if an image is at least twice as long/high as it is high/long, that the user is only then given the custom thumbnail page. They wouldn't be able to control the size, only the position. On a long image, a square thumbnail would be locked to the height and be able to be positioned horizontally. On a tall image, the thumbnail would be locked to the width and be able to be positioned vertically. If the image is not-so 2:1, then the system does the full-image thumbnail automatically.

    This doesn't/shouldn't stop people from using custom-made thumbnails, as sometimes they can be informative, like a list of tags. I suspect a fair number of people are just using the cropping system though, like myself.
    Last edited by Tayruu; 01-13-2014 at 06:29 AM.

  8. #28
    I personally believe that "Give the artist choice" as it works on other sites is perfectly fine. If you really want to make a custom thumbnail, then work on your computer and make a custom thumbnail. The bells and whistles here make it too easy to allow (encourage) artists to screw up.

    This isn't meant to be mean to the people who say it makes it look better professionally. Furry commissions doesn't really count as "Professional" in the sense they're trying to use. There are still a lot of people who think that the Photoshop "lens flare" filter should be liberally applied to everything. People who work in the professional field now the difference between "thumbnails" and "teasers".

    I think what a lot of people don't realize is what their target audience is. Let's take my entire paragraph above away. Then just consider this: No matter how good it looks artistically to you, your audience dislikes it. Thus you only get fewer views overall, more people who feel "tricked" by the thumbnails, and thus fewer people who are likely to pay you for all this professional effort you are putting in.

    The main thing all the artists types are forgetting is that the thumbnails are not for you. They are for the viewers who outnumber you by a large factor and who you are trying to entice to view and -like- your art. Most of the viewers will not complain. They will just not look, not view, feel tricked, and thus not buy (if getting buyers if your goal) or not be happy with your art (if that is your goal).

    Thumbnails are not there for the artists. They are there for the viewers. Having a way for artists to upload custom thumbnails is fine. But stop making it so easy for everybody who throws a picture up on here to mess it up. It does the vast majority of the site's users a major disservice and remember: Those eyes, those happy viewers, are what the site is "selling" to artists. Lose that and you have a site that has a lot of art and no viewers, which is pretty hopeless for an art site.

    The longer they wait to fix it, the more existing data they need to re-process and the more complicated the fix becomes. Bad design from the start. Bells and whistles at the cost of usability. A very common mistake of web design.

  9. #29
    The only arguments I've read here in favor of the square thumbnails are essentially "they're pretty and I like them," with no thought given to functionality or ease of use. Textbook case of bad design.

    Yes, the square thumbnails are neat and pretty and line up in visually pleasing rows and columns, but users (both artists and consumers) have been very clear about the challenges they pose to site navigation. Did you ever stop to think about why every good art site defaults to using uncropped thumbnails? It's not because the designers have poor aesthetic taste. It's because they are the most effective at doing what a thumbnail is supposed to do -- provide an accurate preview of the full piece.

    Hover images would not adequately compensate for the poor utility of square thumbnails. It should not be necessary to hover over every single image (row by row, column by column) to get a feel for all of the art on a given page. In addition to being tedious and annoying, it would make mobile browsing difficult. Fancy mouseover effects should be kept to a minimum. Sometimes they are useful, but there shouldn't be a million different things jumping out at me every time I roll my mouse across the page.

  10. #30
    I think that when the site is changed so the enlarged images will appear on hover, I think that people should consider what has to be changed about the mobile site. In this thread I described that the titles weren't visible because you can not really hover if you have no mouse. The same aplies to enlarged images on hover. There are several possibilities:

    - Single tap on submissions to "hover", double tap to open the submission.

    - Tap and hold to "hover", tap quickly (less then half a second or a second) to open.

    - "Hover" on the image in the middle of the screen, tap to open.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •