Photo Gallery Forums

To me the HTML version, visually is not on the same level as the Flash version. The "+" and content I did not know what they for at first? I know it is a breadcrumb, but I found out until I went into a folder. The pic used to represent a folder, poor choice does not a first look like a folder. It might be better to have a small photo used for each folder to what the photos are. This is after all used to display photos.

The flash version displays the # of photos in the folder. It the HTML version none.

Are the thumbnails used in the HTML and Flash version are going using the same thumbnail or there are going to be seperate thumbnails?

Thanks

Bill

Appreciate your feedback, but let me make one thing clear: We initially only made the HTML gallery because it is perfect for indexing pages/images, as a complimentary gallery, and because we could.

The HTML gallery is very "basic" in the term that is is purely folders and images, and everything is controlled by CSS. We didn't even plan on adding the "DTree" javascript menu you notice under the [+] icon, because it wasn't required for indexing the gallery. One thing is for sure, the HTML gallery certainly isn't there to compete with the flash gallery.

Your suggestions are appreciated, and we will consider implementing # of photos and preview thumbnails for folders shortly.

Thumbnails used in flash and HTML are the same. If someone seriously needs to use both the SWF gallery and HTML gallery and required the thumbnails to be different, then they should simply consider using two separate instances of the gallery.

The html gallery is WHY i bought this software, so thanks very much for including it especially as it is so basic and highly customisable.

For the folder thumbnails, I would also like the ability to have a custom icon for each folder.