When viewing a list in Classmate Profiles in Professional, Themed and Responsive Designs the information displayed is in identical format. Namely two columns in alphabetical order starting with A in the left column with the right hand column starting about halfway through the total list and ending with Z.

In the Responsive Design the yearbook photos are displayed in the same fashion as the listing. In the Professional and Themed Designs however, the photos are displayed in three columns alphabetically from left to right before proceeding to the next row. I much prefer the three column presentation. Can the Responsive Design be so changed to three maybe even four columns? If not as the default, then as an option?

FC,

I thought Responsive Designs were meant to change the display so it works better on smaller display devices, like iPads and phones. Adding more columns to Responsive Designs doesn't seem like the right thing to do. However, if there is room for 3 or 4 or 5 columns, it doesn't seem that hard to divide the list up into how many columns will fit, then index each column by the offset of the start of each column. I will propose the idea to Brad to see if there is someone who could work on it.

I appreciate you bringing this up with Brad.

When I reduce the screen size on my pc the Classmate Profiles list is reduced to one column and so are the yearbook photos. I assume that this is a way of determining how it displays on devices like tablets and phones. On the other hand the yearbook photos on the In Memory page continue to be displayed in 3 columns.

The Profile display was changed when the RD was first introduced whereas the In Memory page never was modified from the format that was used in the Themed and Professional designs. If the In Memory page works ok in RD it would seem that a Profiles page using that same format would also.

There are different "sort" options for "Profile" vs "Memory" as well as very different code used to display the data.

The issue for profiles is that to get the first column in alpha order and then the second column follows the last shown in first column, code needs to analyze a bit and change the CSS so it displays correctly. It's not quite as simple as assumed.

Memory is a bit different and when different options are chosen, you'll see very different displays.

It's all in the CSS generated after analyzing the requirements. The CSS is done in percent, so a browser automatically knows how much space is required and when to "flow". The two different pages do it very differently. Memory is a bit simpler, probably because the usage is different.

As I recall, the first RD design for Profiles was hard to read alphabetically and thus what is there now was done.

Original "old" styles were table driven and thus very different. They don't adapt to screen sizes in the same way. So actually even Memory was changed in RD.

Anyway, if you examine the html/CSS code, you can see they are done very differently. [Going by memory, since I'd have to look at the old styles to verify - but that's what I recall.]