I brought my laptop to the Apple store and long story short it's probably a problem with the WIFI card but it's too early to really tell. So once the problem becomes more persistent I'll take it in again to get checked out. (All the diagnostics were in the green so there wasn't any way of really telling what the problem was).)
So I'll be continuing working on commissions again (btw I have commissions open right now for those interested: fav.me/d537f8u
)dA Thumbnails***Note: I am not doing a second read through of what I wrote since I am busy today and do not have the time to properly edit for things. A few of my points may end up either conflicting or need clarification and if they are/do please tell me so later I can properly write out what I had meant to say!
Okay, so, I remember dA staff testing the new thumbnail thing out a few months back (you could click on a link and it would show you a sample of what you gallery and the front page would look like (with functionality) with the new layout). And there was such backlash against it, I don't remember seeing any positive feedback (I also voiced my opinions in the comments as it is something I felt very strongly about).
Last night when they rolled the new thumbnails out I just couldn't believe they actually stuck with it. After such resounding negative feedback did they really think it would be accepted with open arms?
I'll get used to the terrible large 'previews' (they are too large to be thumbnails now) but I don't think I'll ever stop complaining about why they are a terrible change:
1. IMAGE CROPPING
Why would you crop an image? It does not help it in the slightest. Horizontal images are barely cropped on the edges, you can still see the majority of the image. HOWEVER, ESPECIALLY LARGE VERTICAL IMAGES ARE PRACTICALLY HALVED. Why would you chop off half an image? It does not display the image better and though you can see details slightly better YOU CAN'T SEE THE OTHER HALF OF THE IMAGE.
One of my suggestions (as well as a few others) back when this change was first brought up was to have the images scroll, like with Literature deviations, so that you can preview the rest of the image. Either that or reformat how vertical images are cropped to showcase the majority of the image (like with horizontal pieces).
2. THE SIZE OF THE PREVIEW IMAGE/THUMBNAIL
While, yes, it is nice to see a larger image and see more details, it defeats the purpose of a thumbnail in the first place, to have a small
image that showcases the entire image before you decide to look at the entire thing.
One complaint that has been brought up is that the larger previews now seem to shove things in your face more. This is a bad thing for the following reasons:
(a) It is more difficult to take in larger images all at once. Smaller images make it easy to peruse what is there but also invite curiosity. Small thumbnails you are not sure what the details are and that is something that people end up clicking on, because they want to know what the full story behind this tiny image is. With larger thumbnails you see most of the story and while some pieces will still either catch your eye more or not depending on your tastes, you are now less curious about pieces you weren't sure of, pieces that were small enough that you weren't quite sure what it was or how much detail was actually there, so you clicked the image and see if you expectations were really fulfilled. At least, this is where I am seeing this from. I am now less inclined to click an image on the front page because I now know what the image is and am already feeling a sense of fulfillment (and it's not the good sort of fulfillment) seeing this larger preview of it.
(b) You now have images that you generally do not want shoved in your faced, well, shoved in your face. Another concern I have seen floating around was now images that people have taken of themselves (those 5-second MySpace photo shots of peoples' faces or body parts you may not want to see at a larger resolution) are now staring you in the face. They aren't small enough to bypass easily when browsing, they are large enough for you to know what is there in full.
'OH JUST USE THE MATURE FIL-'
I'm going to stop you right there for two reasons. One, not everyone tags things with the mature filter and not everything that hasn't been tagged with that filter gets taken down. And that isn't just nudity I'm talking about. This also includes guro/gore, vore, things of that nature that people may either forget or deliberately not tag as mature.
Also, some people (such as myself) do not actively go looking for nudes and the such (things generally under the mature tag) but we keep the filter off anyway, maybe in case we do see something we like under that filter. However, this does not mean we want these things in our face 'previewed' at a larger size.
It really just comes down to not wanting things to be shoved at us, forcing us to look at it more so than in it were a smaller image, easily ignored.
3. OVERALL LAYOUT
It looks terrible and unprofessional.
Probably the number one complaint I've been seeing about this change.
In this day and age, I believe the general consensus is a more professional-looking image (image meaning overall look) is that of a compact, easy to look at, non-intrusive layout is what is liked.
With the changes we now have larger preview images. Larger previews means less images per row. The spacing between images also causes a problem with overall look, makes it look very uneven in places. Mind you, I am looking at it with the Grid view on. With the Wall View is looks like a train wreck. While Wall View condenses the page (making it so you do not have to scroll as much), everything is so compacted that it looks like someone forgot to add some paragraph and break tags in the coding. If I were new to this site I would be very turned off by the general look of the front page. The same can be said for galleries.
Also, the lighter border around some images is kind of ridiculous and useless. To an outsider of the site, it would look like I purposefully put a light background behind an image. This affects images with transparency and images that have been re-sized to fit in with the obscure proportion limits put in place. I understand that they want the images within a bound area to fit in better with the rows but it just doesn't look intuitive.
One last note on that, I would like to add that there is a pixelization that happens with these new preview images. And not just any sort of pixels, .JPEG pixels. It isn't all that noticeable on a few pieces for whatever reason, but other pieces it is really obvious if you look close enough...though I don't think you'll need to lean in that
close to your screen anymore. The pixelization gives a false impression of how the image actually looks, imo.
These are the reasons I have seen, as well as my own reasons, to why this change is not a good or happy one filled with sunshine and rainbows. This isn't like an overall site layout change (v6, v7, etc situations). Those were things that were inevitable. This new update with the thumbnails though was something dA brought up with the public and asked what they thought and despite a large portion of feedback to not instate this change and/or to work on it more so it was different and worked with it's userbase better they went ahead and slapped it up without a warning (from what I have read they posted the main journal entry about the changes about 30 minutes or so after the change happened). Personally, I would like it if dA did not pull Facebooks and put forth changes without ample warning as well as listen to its userbase better in the future.
Over time people will grudgingly stop complaining as they always do but I do not believe it will really take away any bad feelings towards dA they have due to unnecessary changes like this.