Hi,
Any idea when X3 will be released?
Btw, I have a big wish for X3 (this is probably Nick's department):
Easier integration with an existing website that requires login (i.e. session).
What I mean:
Let's say I created a website that allows my users to upload photos. I would like to integrate Imagevue X3 into my website as a gallery.
Once they're logged into my website, they can also access Imagevue's admin interface without having to login again thru a separate
Imagevue portal.
I have achieved this in the past, but not without hacking the original files. Which means that I can't upgrade my Imagevue without losing
the changes.
So pretty please, can we make easier integration / session-share ability a standard feature of X3?
For example:
if (isset($_SESSION['imagevue'])){
if($_SESSION['imagevue'] === 'restricted_admin'){
//Allow access to Imagevue's restricted admin interface
}
}
So in order to allow my users to access Imagevue Admin Interface, all my website needs to do is set the session var "imagevue" to "restricted_admin".
Thanks!
X3Photo Gallery Forums
X3 Photo Gallery Support Forums
Re: Imagevue X3 - easier integration with website -session s
With Imagevue X3, the main idea is to be able to say "yes it can do that" to all modern feature requests. Unfortunately, when it comes to integration into a separate website, this is less than ideal. This is complicated for the same reasons that other 3rd party photo galleries and forums (etc) simply dont plug well into other websites. Imagevue X3 is an entire ecosystem of templates, css, javascript and PHP ...
In fact, it was easier before because Imagevue X2 was simply a SWF module that one could embed into any web page (although the result was sometimes questionable).
I really would like to offer a way to easily integrate strictly Imagevue gallery into a custom website, but basically we are looking at these two options ... hmm strike that, make it 3 options ...
1. Style Imagevue to resemble your website
You could upload Imagevue into a subfolder on your website, and then style the colors and fonts to match your website. You can also edit the header and footer templates and insert the html to match your website. Although not the most attractive approach, it is very realistic.
2. Include "imagevue" into your page or template.
A more idealistic approach, would be to simply include the Imagevue script into one of your pages or templates using something like <?php include 'path/vars.php'; ?>. The problem with this approach, is that you would have to also include required javascripts and CSS files, both likely to collide with your own JS and CSS. It would also require you to have a certain html structure, as Imagevue works within the structure of your html. There are other pitfalls, for example Imagevue can no longer control how your website responds to mobile devices ... This will be up to your own website template.
... The main problem is that Imagevue is "page-oriented", and if it can't control the page, then it can't control much at all. For example, Imagevue X3 uses html5 pushstate and ajax to load pages dynamically, something that it can't do within your custom page and menu structure.
3. Add a single-page template that can easily be embedded.
Another idea, would be to add a single-page JS template of X3 that can easily be embedded into a website. This would in fact be more similar to how Imagevue X2 works, but upfront I can say it would not be SEO friendly, although that may not matter for some. I think this could work well without many complications, but there are issues similar to #2 ... for example, Imagevue cannot control the layout for mobile devices, as this is in the hands of the wrapper website.
All in all, I think they way to go with X3, is that more users will want to build their entire website around X3 (which will be much improved since X3). The answers above are a bit me "thinking aloud", and doing so because I really wanted to have some nice options for adding a gallery into another website, but it does get complicated. Certainly want to keep an open door in this department ...
I think the session-sharing would be a minor problem to solve ...
In fact, it was easier before because Imagevue X2 was simply a SWF module that one could embed into any web page (although the result was sometimes questionable).
I really would like to offer a way to easily integrate strictly Imagevue gallery into a custom website, but basically we are looking at these two options ... hmm strike that, make it 3 options ...
1. Style Imagevue to resemble your website
You could upload Imagevue into a subfolder on your website, and then style the colors and fonts to match your website. You can also edit the header and footer templates and insert the html to match your website. Although not the most attractive approach, it is very realistic.
2. Include "imagevue" into your page or template.
A more idealistic approach, would be to simply include the Imagevue script into one of your pages or templates using something like <?php include 'path/vars.php'; ?>. The problem with this approach, is that you would have to also include required javascripts and CSS files, both likely to collide with your own JS and CSS. It would also require you to have a certain html structure, as Imagevue works within the structure of your html. There are other pitfalls, for example Imagevue can no longer control how your website responds to mobile devices ... This will be up to your own website template.
... The main problem is that Imagevue is "page-oriented", and if it can't control the page, then it can't control much at all. For example, Imagevue X3 uses html5 pushstate and ajax to load pages dynamically, something that it can't do within your custom page and menu structure.
3. Add a single-page template that can easily be embedded.
Another idea, would be to add a single-page JS template of X3 that can easily be embedded into a website. This would in fact be more similar to how Imagevue X2 works, but upfront I can say it would not be SEO friendly, although that may not matter for some. I think this could work well without many complications, but there are issues similar to #2 ... for example, Imagevue cannot control the layout for mobile devices, as this is in the hands of the wrapper website.
All in all, I think they way to go with X3, is that more users will want to build their entire website around X3 (which will be much improved since X3). The answers above are a bit me "thinking aloud", and doing so because I really wanted to have some nice options for adding a gallery into another website, but it does get complicated. Certainly want to keep an open door in this department ...
I think the session-sharing would be a minor problem to solve ...
-
- honeybadger
- Posts: 8
- Joined:
Re: Imagevue X3 - easier integration with website -session s
Hi Karl,
I would STRONGLY suggest using Bootstrap (http://getbootstrap.com/) for Imagevue X3's frontend.
This way you would have resolved a lot of your responsive design issues; with Bootstrap, Imagevue would be responsive even if loaded as an iframe. The responsiveness would be independent of the wrapper website.
Besides, Bootstrap is probably the most popular frontend framework out there.
Another thing:
I know you want to make Imagevue X3 a standalone website. But there are also a lot of us developers out there who would love to integrate Imagevue as part of our website. And I'm sure a lot of your customers belong to the second category, judging from the questions that are being asked in the forum.
So perhaps have one version for those who want Imagevue as a standalone website, and a stripped down version for us web developers?
This way you only need to maintain one codebase, but you'll be able to satisfy the requirements of both group.
Just a thought.
Thanks.
I would STRONGLY suggest using Bootstrap (http://getbootstrap.com/) for Imagevue X3's frontend.
This way you would have resolved a lot of your responsive design issues; with Bootstrap, Imagevue would be responsive even if loaded as an iframe. The responsiveness would be independent of the wrapper website.
Besides, Bootstrap is probably the most popular frontend framework out there.
Another thing:
I know you want to make Imagevue X3 a standalone website. But there are also a lot of us developers out there who would love to integrate Imagevue as part of our website. And I'm sure a lot of your customers belong to the second category, judging from the questions that are being asked in the forum.
So perhaps have one version for those who want Imagevue as a standalone website, and a stripped down version for us web developers?
This way you only need to maintain one codebase, but you'll be able to satisfy the requirements of both group.
Just a thought.
Thanks.
Re: Imagevue X3 - easier integration with website -session s
We already decided to use Zurb Foundation, although most of the modules in X3 are independent from any frontend framework. Foundation is more style-agnostic than Bootstrap, supports SASS, and is better equipped for a website that will have its own style base without inheriting much from the framework generic styles.honeybadger wrote:I would STRONGLY suggest using Bootstrap (http://getbootstrap.com/) for Imagevue X3's frontend.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. If your website isn't responsive, it doesn't matter what is loaded into an iframe if the iframe isn't inside a responsive grid of some sort ... Furthermore, regardless of the responsiveness, we would avoid using iframes ... If anything, we would simply have html element inside your website where you would run an imagevue() javascript, and it would simply build and load everything dynamically without using an iframe. It still would out of Imagevues hands to control anything related to layout, as the best Imagevue could do, would be to fill the container it is placed within. Also, as mention in my previous post, this method is simply undesirable in terms of SEO, accessibility and sharing simply because Imagevue loses control of pages also ...honeybadger wrote:This way you would have resolved a lot of your responsive design issues; with Bootstrap, Imagevue would be responsive even if loaded as an iframe. The responsiveness would be independent of the wrapper website.
Yes, and Windows is the most popular operating system ...honeybadger wrote:Besides, Bootstrap is probably the most popular frontend framework out there.
I don't mind Bootstrap, I just find it a bit sugar-coated and generic, and is better suited for designers who wish to skip a few steps getting a website ready. Foundation is leaner and meaner.Actually, I would LOVE to create a "gallery kit" that can be integrated into a website, and have wanted to do something like this for a long time. However, it gets very complicated for the reasons I posted in my previous post (and was actually WHY I posted them). This is the same reason why you simply will not find any other attractive solutions like this in the market today (which you might find strange since it is almost 2014). A bit hard to explain, but I just need to emphasize re-reading my 3 points in my previous post, which are the ONLY way to successfully embed a gallery in some way or other.honeybadger wrote:I know you want to make Imagevue X3 a standalone website. But there are also a lot of us developers out there who would love to integrate Imagevue as part of our website. And I'm sure a lot of your customers belong to the second category, judging from the questions that are being asked in the forum.
Adding an embeddable iframe-gallery is not the way in 2014 ... Even a more advanced JS solution would be inferior ... We could perhaps add galleries, thumbnails and images, but there would be several major disadvantages:
# No "pages", since your website handles this, and the module will basically be on a single page (kinda like Imagevue X2).
# Poor/no SEO, since Imagevue cant create/access pages and edit titles, and also because Google simply sees a single page.
# Imagevue flow/layout/responsiveness is left to circumstances, may easily not be responsive. At best, Imagevue could be set to flow within the container element it is added to.
# Imagevue X3 uses advanced html5/ajax dynamic loading pages, which obviously can't be used if it isn't handling the page loading.
# Menus (responsive) ... Imagevue basically stands no chance at integrating advanced responsive navigation systems when simply added into an element. For example, here is a screenshot of the new off-canvas menu in X3, which comes in from the side of the screen and can easily be scrolled on any touch device ... in fact, it will also be an option for desktop/mouse, as it works nicely there also. Could you imagine how something like that would be integrated into an element in a website?
# Then there is stuff like swiping, fullscreen, navigation elements.
# Finally, the major headache of getting the Imagevue CSS + Javascript to work nicely with your native websites CSS + Javascript.
# The days are gone when you can cram all those elements into an element within another website and still have it act nicely across all devices.
The reasons above, are the exact same reasons why you simply can't find any good solutions for this. You might find some neat slideshows with thumbnails that can take 100% browser height, but they are not integrated with a backend or separate pages. At the other end of the tree, you can find some PHP solution that will handle the logic of listing galleries on your pages, but they will not handle the logic of how the images are viewed or navigated.
Would love to, I'm just noting the current state of affairs, which is somewhat less fortunate ... Perhaps wait and see the early version of X3 and what its capable of, just to get some ideas? I would like to proceed with some "gallery kit" for integrating into other websites, but there are many practical hurdles ...honeybadger wrote:So perhaps have one version for those who want Imagevue as a standalone website, and a stripped down version for us web developers?
This way you only need to maintain one codebase, but you'll be able to satisfy the requirements of both group.
Appreciate your feedback!
-
- honeybadger
- Posts: 8
- Joined:
Re: Imagevue X3 - easier integration with website -session s
Not true, Karl. I can load an entire iframe into any website (responsive or not). With a few lines of CSS to make it occupy the entire page, I can effectively make the entire page content responsive, regardless of the wrapper website.Sorry, but that is incorrect. If your website isn't responsive, it doesn't matter what is loaded into an iframe if the iframe isn't inside a responsive grid of some sort ...
Here:
Code
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1">
<title>Iframe test</title>
<meta name="description" content="">
<meta name="author" content="">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width; initial-scale=1.0">
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon.ico">
<link rel="apple-touch-icon" href="/apple-touch-icon.png">
<style>
html, body{
height:100%;
margin:0;
overflow:hidden;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<iframe src="http://getbootstrap.com/components/" width="100%" height="100%"></iframe>
</body>
</html>
Suffice to say, if your app is built on Bootstrap, it CAN still be responsive regardless of whether the wrapper site is responsive or not.
I'm not saying that iframe is THE solution, but it's a compromise - a hack, if you wish to call it, in order to get some stubborn 3rd party app to work within a custom site. It is not something I like to do either. But it works as far as visually and responsiveness is concern. Just not very good for SEO or paging. But then again, there are circumstances where SEO and paging is not critical.
So its up to the user to decide what to compromise.
I normally prefer to integrate galleries the usual way... i.e via loading all its dependent CSS and JS files, and providing the necessary DOM ids and classes for the gallery to display in / hook on. That's how all the major sliders, galleries, etc. work. So I think perhaps this is the way forward for X3.
I disagree. I've created a number of major SaaS and web apps over the years, and I can tell you there are VERY GOOD REASONS why developers prefer Bootstrap over any other frontend frameworks. And its not popular "just like Windows is popular". It's popular for very good, technically sound reasons. It can also be as lean as you want.Yes, and Windows is the most popular operating system ...
But then, it's your choice as to which framework you ultimately decide to use. Just bear in mind that if you're after longevity of your product, then it makes perfect sense to go with the framework that is going to still be around a few years from now. And Bootstrap will probably be around long after ZURB is gone.
Besides, if you're selling your products to web developers so they can use it as part of their deployment, doesn't it make sense for you to also use the framework that most of them use? This way, they're more inclined to buy, because they already familiar with Bootstrap. Just a thought for you.
Re: Imagevue X3 - easier integration with website -session s
not sure about the other points, but iframes are a definite NO-NO from an SEO stand point.
Re: Imagevue X3 - easier integration with website -session s
Sure, if you set your page to be at 100% width, technically it is responsive ... or if your wrapper for the embedded Imagevue element is responsive in its own way ... However, as mentioned, this leaves the entire setup to be based on variables ... Imagevue can't be responsive if your parent website is not responsive, it is that simple.honeybadger wrote:Not true, Karl. I can load an entire iframe into any website (responsive or not). With a few lines of CSS to make it occupy the entire page, I can effectively make the entire page content responsive, regardless of the wrapper website.
So taking it a bit further, pretending for a moment we are adding an iframe solution, then you could get it to work, but then there would have to be requirements to the website that embeds Imagevue (err, the wrapper has to be responsive). Furthermore, loading a full framework as part of an iframe module? Ok, all this would work, but it would depend on using an iframe and not using a more modern JS DOM-manipulation method, where the gallery technically would be part of your page instead of an iframe ... Basically I would need to require "You need to set your iframe to 100% width and 100% height to get it to work" ... oh, and I almost forgot, if you set an iframe to 100% height, it will cover an an area of the browser height, not the height of the changing content within the iframe ... This means we are left with an iframe that contains a scrollbar, unless we avoid scrolling, but this is an integral part of navigating websites in 2014 (especially in 2014).
If you are using an iframe, one could avoid conflicts with CSS and javascript. However, the style of your website and the integrated module would be 100% independent, and nothing would get inherited upon the other.
Yes, but it is unrelated to if it is bootstrap or another responsive setup. Bootstrap is 90% other stuff, and I can read the keywords here "load bootstrap website into iframe", which is quite a backwards proposition. Even if we did get it to work in some limited way in an inferior implementation, you would still not solve the height of the iframe, which would be locked to either a pixel-based value, or a percentage of your screen ... The iframe would create a scrollbar for overflowing content ... What height you gonna set the iframe btw?honeybadger wrote:Suffice to say, if your app is built on Bootstrap, it CAN still be responsive regardless of whether the wrapper site is responsive or not.
Even exploring deeper this option with an iframe, with a little creative insight, you must admit it is a poor solution?
This would indeed be much better so Imagevue could break out of any "iframe" limitation. However, this opens its own major "can-o-worms" ... Imagevue would need to be able to mix in with another website and inheriting CSS and JS without breaking. ... I could write an entire page about how complicated this may get, but I outlined a some of it earlier. Ultimately, this is the path would would wish to walk though ...honeybadger wrote:I normally prefer to integrate galleries the usual way... i.e via loading all its dependent CSS and JS files, and providing the necessary DOM ids and classes for the gallery to display in / hook on. That's how all the major sliders, galleries, etc. work. So I think perhaps this is the way forward for X3.
We don't need to have the discussion about frontend frameworks ... I have used Bootstrap, and don't really have anything against it ... In fact, I started building an experimental X3 interface with it several months ago. I just found that Foundation was more bleeding-edge on new technologies, and better suited as a proper development fundament ...honeybadger wrote:I disagree. I've created a number of major SaaS and web apps over the years, and I can tell you there are VERY GOOD REASONS why developers prefer Bootstrap over any other frontend frameworks. And its not popular "just like Windows is popular". It's popular for very good, technically sound reasons. It can also be as lean as you want.
While Bootstrap was busy with version 3, Foundation went through version 4 and launched version 5 recently, and now version 6 is in the making. They launch new stuff quickly, and deprecate outdated material. They have a professional company behind it (Zurb), who are basically pushing the web forwards. Who is behind Bootstrap? Its not part of Twitter any more, its just a group of "collaborators" ... I have followed it for several years, and they are not as flexible to change as they should be.honeybadger wrote:But then, it's your choice as to which framework you ultimately decide to use. Just bear in mind that if you're after longevity of your product, then it makes perfect sense to go with the framework that is going to still be around a few years from now. And Bootstrap will probably be around long after ZURB is gone.
Foundation is not very different from Bootstrap ... Anything you can do with Bootstrap, you can do with Foundation. We had to find the best tool for Imagevue, and it was Foundation. Did you try it?honeybadger wrote:Besides, if you're selling your products to web developers so they can use it as part of their deployment, doesn't it make sense for you to also use the framework that most of them use? This way, they're more inclined to buy, because they already familiar with Bootstrap. Just a thought for you.
-
- honeybadger
- Posts: 8
- Joined:
Re: Imagevue X3 - easier integration with website -session s
Karl,
You can argue against iframe and how it's "oh so not 2014". But the truth remains that iframe has its place, and therefore is still an integral part of HTML5. There are valid places and situations for it to be used where SEO and pagination is not an issue. And there is no need for you to add an "iframe solution" either. Like I said, using iframe to house an imagevue gallery is one of the options for web developer wishing to integrate imagevue as part of larger website. It is the responsibility for us web developers to make sure that all things work seamlessly for our users if we decide to use the iframe strategy. And it is easy enough to make it work according to what we need.
It is our responsibility as web developers to make things work the way we want. That is not your burden.
So the REAL question is, who are you targeting X3 for? Is it:
1. For end-users with very limited web skills, who want to use imagevue as a website by itself, or...
2. For web developers who want to integrate Imagevue as part of a larger website?
Both have very different requirements. Speaking for myself as a developer, if you want to sell X3 to developers, then you just need to:
a) Make sure some form of session-sharing is easily achievable
b) Allow us to easily turn off parts of the admin interface that we don't want our users to access
c) Keep Imagevue sleek and fluid... without using Flash if possible
In other words, give us some solid APIs to work with.
I'm not interested to use Imagevue as a website. So I don't need the menu system, the pages, contact form, fotomoto... etc.
Like I said, you could create two versions of X3: one for developers and one for end-users. Or you could make X3 very modular and flexible so that it could be easily used for both groups of customers with little modifications.
I hope the time I spend writing all this feedback is useful for you.
You can argue against iframe and how it's "oh so not 2014". But the truth remains that iframe has its place, and therefore is still an integral part of HTML5. There are valid places and situations for it to be used where SEO and pagination is not an issue. And there is no need for you to add an "iframe solution" either. Like I said, using iframe to house an imagevue gallery is one of the options for web developer wishing to integrate imagevue as part of larger website. It is the responsibility for us web developers to make sure that all things work seamlessly for our users if we decide to use the iframe strategy. And it is easy enough to make it work according to what we need.
It is our responsibility as web developers to make things work the way we want. That is not your burden.
So the REAL question is, who are you targeting X3 for? Is it:
1. For end-users with very limited web skills, who want to use imagevue as a website by itself, or...
2. For web developers who want to integrate Imagevue as part of a larger website?
Both have very different requirements. Speaking for myself as a developer, if you want to sell X3 to developers, then you just need to:
a) Make sure some form of session-sharing is easily achievable
b) Allow us to easily turn off parts of the admin interface that we don't want our users to access
c) Keep Imagevue sleek and fluid... without using Flash if possible
In other words, give us some solid APIs to work with.
I'm not interested to use Imagevue as a website. So I don't need the menu system, the pages, contact form, fotomoto... etc.
Like I said, you could create two versions of X3: one for developers and one for end-users. Or you could make X3 very modular and flexible so that it could be easily used for both groups of customers with little modifications.
I hope the time I spend writing all this feedback is useful for you.
Re: Imagevue X3 - easier integration with website -session s
This discussion is going a bit stale and repetitive. I am not against iframe because its 2014 or because I don't want to make it ... I am against it basically because it will not work very well at all, no matter how we build it. This is just a fact. What you gonna set the iframe height to? Imagevue X3 is an application that requires scrolling ...honeybadger wrote:You can argue against iframe and how it's "oh so not 2014". But the truth remains that iframe has its place, and therefore is still an integral part of HTML5. There are valid places and situations for it to be used where SEO and pagination is not an issue. And there is no need for you to add an "iframe solution" either. Like I said, using iframe to house an imagevue gallery is one of the options for web developer wishing to integrate imagevue as part of larger website. It is the responsibility for us web developers to make sure that all things work seamlessly for our users if we decide to use the iframe strategy. And it is easy enough to make it work according to what we need.
We are building modern gallery solution, not backwards stuff I would never consider using myself or never recommend to anyone.
The target audience of X3 might shift slightly after X2, basically because the world has changed and so has Imagevue. We are not essentially targeting or excluding anyone, but for now our main aim is straight-forward: We want to build a supreme gallery platform on all levels that count in these modern times: speed, design, quality, usability and flexibility across all devices. As specified before, I would think it would be great to offer some kind of "gallery kit" for X3 that can be added to other websites, but honestly I do not see this happening with iframe ... lets just please agree to disagree on that for now? We are designers and developers, and we have a lot of experience, and if we can't make what we believe is the best solution then why would we make it at all for anyone else?honeybadger wrote:So the REAL question is, who are you targeting X3 for? Is it:
1. For end-users with very limited web skills, who want to use imagevue as a website by itself, or...
2. For web developers who want to integrate Imagevue as part of a larger website?
I don't see why the features above will not be part of X3. a) would need some fixing.honeybadger wrote:a) Make sure some form of session-sharing is easily achievable
b) Allow us to easily turn off parts of the admin interface that we don't want our users to access
c) Keep Imagevue sleek and fluid... without using Flash if possible
Not quite sure about offering API's. This is a bit out of scope currently.honeybadger wrote:In other words, give us some solid APIs to work with.
Understood, and all these things can be turned off and/or disabled, leaving strictly a gallery system. It still really doesn't change anything related to the issues with iframe though, which you seem to be clinging to. As a developer, do you seriously envision an iframe-embedded gallery as the ultimate solution to your gallery needs? Is it the product you are waiting for? Even though it has no synchronization with your main website in terms of style? Even though it cant support pages or proper seo? even if I can't see it happening since you gotta specify a height for your iframe?honeybadger wrote:I'm not interested to use Imagevue as a website. So I don't need the menu system, the pages, contact form, fotomoto... etc.
... A much better solution than iframe, would probably be to simply execute a script imagevue() at the bottom of your page, and apply it upon an empty element <div id=imagevue></div>. You would avoid all problems with iframe, and Imagevue would just load everything with ajax and work with the DOM within that element. It could be responsive, and the height would respond to the height of the content injected. Also, it would inherit basic styles of your main website ... The main challenge would be for Imagevue to inject javascript and CSS modules into your website that do not conflict with your own JS+ CSS and vice versa.
-
- honeybadger
- Posts: 8
- Joined:
Re: Imagevue X3 - easier integration with website -session s
Karl,
I think there're a huge misunderstanding here....
I DID NOT suggest iframe is the best way. Neither did I ask you to support iframes in X3. So these arguments against iframes are moot.
I was merely demonstrating how a responsive iframe could be used if one really wants to - especially to house a gallery that displays images from a single folder (where SEO and pagination is not important to the user).
And you can easily set the height with a few lines of css and wrapper div.
That's all.
I think there're a huge misunderstanding here....
I DID NOT suggest iframe is the best way. Neither did I ask you to support iframes in X3. So these arguments against iframes are moot.
I was merely demonstrating how a responsive iframe could be used if one really wants to - especially to house a gallery that displays images from a single folder (where SEO and pagination is not important to the user).
And you can easily set the height with a few lines of css and wrapper div.
That's all.
Last edited by honeybadger on 30 Dec 2013, 20:02, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Imagevue X3 - easier integration with website -session s
Is there a plugin for Imagevue or module for Wordpress, Joomla or other CMS?
Re: Imagevue X3 - easier integration with website -session s
At this point with Imagevue X2, you can simply embed the imagevue2.swf into your page, regardless of CMS. There is no plugin, I don't think you need one ...Fotofilm wrote:Is there a plugin for Imagevue or module for Wordpress, Joomla or other CMS?