I don't really want to argue about this. As it is in the latest update YOU can easily fix any specific page by editing the grid settings for that page. As it was earlier, if the grid contained only one item, the grid would automatically revert to a single column (matching the maximum amount of items) ... not something that could be edited, even on a per-page basis, because it clearly requires that we lock the columns_amount to NO MORE than items_amount.
SilentD wrote:So what does this new change do for you?
Before, if a grid (for example 3,2,1) only contained a single item, it would look like the screenshot below. Upscaled image, and doesn't even look like a "link" that the visitor would consider to be a "subfolder" category. Obviously, if we should always set columns_amount to max items_amount, you can't even edit this on a per-page basis.
How it will work now, if there are insufficient items to cover the specified grid, is that a minimum grid will still be retained. This prevents ugly upscaling and keeps "folder" links intuitive, without a massive bloated thumbnail representing the folder. Basically it prevent what many users have complained about.
Now of course, unlike before, if you have a specific gallery that you need to adjust because the amount if items is smaller than your assigned grid amount, you can always specifically adjust columns for this page, for example setting 2,2,1.
So the big difference, is that if we lock the grid to the amount of items in the folder (as it was), there is no way to override this obviously. Now, it fixes the issue with ugly single-item orphans, while at the same time, you can still apply your own column settings specifically for any pages.
Clearly I will prioritize advantages to other users, who had no options to override columns, while you now do.
SilentD wrote:Thats not true, it would be centered, without filling the frame (you have this thing called narrower, remember?)
That seems quite an invalid argument. NARROWER creates a narrower layout, and YES it would be a "workaround" for users who end up with ugly single-item orphans, but it's not a solution. Also, it is NOT centering, it's just a "narrow" layout, which may still be much wider than anticipated. Why would these users have to manually apply a narrow layout for all their pages with single items? If they could even figure out that is a "workaround" (which is more than one can expect).
You are basically saying you can't edit per-page settings, but all these other users can.
SilentD wrote:If there is no way to have it work as it did, or possibly have an option to do both, I may want to ask for a roll back version to install.. This new system ruins my workflow. It worked before, now it does not. (unless I want to micromanage every single page) I would want to avoid going to every page (100+) and custom select how many folders are in there. That seems like a setback, when earlier it would simply ignore the numbers and center the content that was there. I could just add new content to existing pages and it would automatically figure it out. (up to 6 pr row on a pc, up to 2 pr row on a phone) Easy! Simplicity is why I bought into this system. Id imagine that ease of use is the point of having it. While at the same time powerful and complex if you wanted it to be. The perfect balance. But being forced to micromanage every change and addition you make, becomes a chore.
I am sorry it turned out this way for you, but surely you must see why it's logical to prevent oversized single-item grid columns, requested by several users. Especially considering you now can override it, while before you couldn't. If you check any other online gallery (facebook, flickr, whatever), if a gallery has a single item, it won't scale the clickable thumb for that image to cover the entire layout width. It will retain some form of grid, so it's intuitive to click the item.
Furthermore, considering your column settings 6,2, I can't see that all has gone to hell as you are implying. As it works now, you would end with the following results, which includes some logical adjustments:
6+ items = 6 columns (like before)
5 items = 5 columns (like before)
4 items = 4 columns (like before)
3 items = 3 columns (like before)
2 items = 3 columns (adjusts to a minimum 3-column)*
1 item = 3 columns (adjusts to a minimum 3-column)*
* Adjust to a minimum 3-column layout, but only if your column settings have 3 OR MORE columns. If you apply a 2,1 grid, it will adjust to a minimum 2-column grid (no more than in your settings). Applying a 1-column grid is obviously illogical, as you might as well use the vertical layout.
In your case, there is only an issue if your grid contains only one or two items. Also, what happened in your case when you only had 1 item in your grid? Were you then manually setting a NARROW layout for that specific page? Or were you just accepting that those items blew up to full layout width? As far as I can see, your issue is pretty much limited to pages that specifically contain only two items.
Why not just set the grid to 2,1 for the page that has two items? Problem solved.
SilentD wrote:The people complaining about the images filling the page should just have used the (narrow, narrower, narrowest) function.. It did the job perfectly.
Why would they need to apply this on a per-page basis? It's not intuitive. You can also edit your two-item pages on a per-page basis now.
Besides the layouts have never and still dont align properly with the frame. If you combine a justified layout of gallery images with a grid of folders, they are not equally wide ;) (over time I have learned to live with it tho)
https://www.jottacloud.com/s/1182e9450d ... ffb9554e32
An entirely separate issue of course, and although these things could be optimized, there are logical explanations, basically the fact that different gallery layouts work differently. For example, in your screenshot:
1) Top JUSTIFIED layout will mathematically calculate (via Javscript) how to fill a ROW of items from LEFT to RIGHT. The margins on LEFT and RIGHT will (and should) equal the margins/space you haver assigned BETWEEN each item. This is how it must be done for a perfect symmetry, also when screen width matches the layout width (which is probably does on 70% of all devices):
2) Bottom GRID layout however, first of all you have assigned DIFFERENT SPACING in this grid than the screenshot of your justified grid. The SPACING of the grid on LEFT and RIGHT side will need to be proportional with the assigned spacing between images. Furthermore, including spacing, grid items need to be centered within their own grid element, so that everything won't left align.
I enjoy demanding clients, and there is always room for improvements, but there is often a bigger picture.
SilentD wrote:I will be content with just getting a pre X3 26 version back and then never update it again.
If you want to DOWNGRADE to another version, you can run the updater like this, specifying the version in the URL: