When a viewer goes into a "Navigation Link" they see a the thumbnails for each "Gallery" within that "link". Under each thumbnail is a notation of "X Gallery(ies) mm.dd.yy" where X= the number of USER supplied groups of pictures and mm.dd.yy = the last date the gallery(ies) was updated.

Do I have this right?

Comment: I do not think the number of galleries means anything to the viewer. They are interested in pictures. Wouldn't it be better to show the total number of pictures under the thumbnail (sum of all user supplied pictures) and the most recent date of update.

When the user clicks to enter the Gallery, Shouldnt the viewer be told the total number of pictures in that(each) group and the most recent update date to that group?

Yes you have it right. It's showing galleries because you marked Community Galleries instead of an Admin gallery. The number of galleries makes a lot more sense if more than 1 person has contributed. For instance if an Admin makes a reunion gallery and 17 people participate in sharing photos, at the Polaroid thumbnail level you could see that 17 people so far have participated in the community gallery.

So I don't think we should change this, but I do think we should also add the number of total photos as you're recommending. For instance

1 Gallery 9/7/10

should change to this:

1 Gallery, 164 photos 9/7/10

I also agree with you that when you arrive on the image thumbnail page we should show centered at the top the total number of photos. If there's a large number of photos people currently wouldn't have any idea how many photos they should expect to be scrolling through. Giving them an indication of how large the gallery is would be very helpful.

It is symantics but shouldnt the Admin/User Level folder of pictures be called something smaller than a GALLERY - seems like ALBUM would be more appropriate.

Galleries hold albums which hold pictures.

Possibly? We only show lines like "Gallery added by Charlie Taylor" on that screen if only 1 gallery exists inside of a community gallery, which is rarely the case. If 2 or more galleries exist within a community gallery you get a second Polaroid screen showing the contributor's name. We only show it atop of the thumbnail screen when only 1 gallery exists inside of a community gallery to preserve the photo credit. Otherwise the credit would be lost entirely. Since we're really only dealing with one screen that only shows up if the gallery is a community gallery and there is only 1 gallery inside of the community gallery, I just changed it to read "Photos contributed by Charlie Taylor." This way we're not using the double "gallery" word twice.

Ok - while we are at it.

After entering the gallery - I see that there are 2 albums to choose from.

I choose one or the other. When I get inside one of the albums, I now have a drop down that allows me to choose either album or all pictures from both albums

Shouldn't I have the choice to view all on the preveious screen?

And its kinda unnerving to see MY NAME under the picture of one our out beautiful cheerleaders. Should there be something like: "Contributor" or "Provided by" under or beforfe the persons name. Something so that someone doesnt think I joined the other team.

to prove my point above:

http://www.gphs71.org/class_gallery.cfm?gallery_id=9301&community=y

View All) "Shouldn't I have the choice to view all on the previous screen?" Personally, I would say no. Why?

1) Because you're not really saving anyone time. If you were to click a View All button you'd only see the first 12 photos of the first person's gallery anyway. From there you'd need to advance the page, change the number of thumbs to display, etc.

2) I think it helps better define that each of these galleries has been contributed by a specific individual. My fear here is that if we display a "View All" button, what will happen in the user's mind when they see that and they decide not to click it? Does not clicking the View All button somehow prevent you from seeing all the photos? It doesn't of course, but I wonder if people might click that button just to ensure they can actually "View All". And that takes away from the uniqueness of seeing everybody's specific gallery contributions. At any time people can change to All if they really want to from the top of any screen.

Do I think it would be a huge negative if we added the button? No I don't. I also just don't see it as a positive either, it's just more interface clutter and could possibly cause confusion in the mind of the viewer, when all galleries are already easily accessible and "All" is already an option from the top of every page. I'm a usability freak. I just don't like putting extra options and buttons on the page if it's really not very necessary to do so. Ask 10 different people though and I'm sure you'll get 10 different answers.

Contributor: You can choose any cover photo you want. I.E. you don't have to have the cheerleader picture there. You also have the option of going into the gallery and flipping the titles and the photo count, so the photo count can come under the pic, and your name as the Contributor can come under the Polaroid itself. Even if you leave it, I don't think too many people will think you're the cheerleader. While that slot can wrap onto 2 lines, I wouldn't add anything extra there like "Contributor". I think it's obvious that's the name of the contributor. Some Classmates have very long names and it needs both lines to fit. Adding more text such as "Contributor" will only cause spacing problems in some instances.

Geez - I changed that option and liked how it was on the "pick the contributor's album" page but then hated it on the pick the gallery page.

I cant win.

I thought about it and I disagree with you primarily from a flow perspective.
1. If I have entered a GALLERY and see that CHARLIE TAYLOR and JAN FARMER have contributed ALBUMS to the gallery. Why would I choose one or the other albums and then choose to see all. I would expect the option to see ALL of the pictures in the GALLERY at the point that I see the 2 albumn polaroids.
2. Credit has already been given to the contributor by showing their names on the polaroid of their ALBUM.
3. It is nice to be able to choose the group of photos by contributor. Would not change that. Also nice to be able to switch to other contributor (or all) albumns once inside an album. Would not change that either. However. Most viewers are gonna wanna see ALL pictures in the gallery - and that option is not where it INTUITIVELY should be.
3. would 4 spaces be too much to add before the CONTRIBUTORS name on there album? for example: "by: CHARLIE TAYLOR"

Well, see I really don't disagree with your rationale, I just put these things on a scale in my mind and see how it tips. The whole point of Community Galleries is to have a space where each person can upload photos and get credit for it. So if 20 people upload reunion photos, I want to go in and see Charlie's photos, and then take a look at John's photos, and then take a look at Judy's photos, etc. All is an option from every page and you have to manipulate something no matter what anyway to keep going through the gallery. Are you wanting "View All" primarily for a slideshow mode presentation, where every contributor's gallery just plays? If that's the case I'd have no choral there, simply letting one gallery transition into the next automatically. Again my primary concern is that a "View All" button in a gallery that was intended to be segmented could give the appearance that the button must be clicked in order to not miss anything. Which isn't the case. Like I said I don't think adding it would be an overly big deal either, I think simplicity and less clutter is good though. Also as we developed this tool it was very important to numerous Admins here that the contributor get the credit for their photos, and the "View All" button lessens that happening, as thumbnails from one gallery blend into the next contributor's gallery all on the same page. Why not let everybody have a unique space and then change to All form there if somebody really wants to? In "All" mode it can be easily missed where on gallery stops and another starts. There's often hundreds if photos in these community galleries, putting the photos into more digestible chunks seems better to me anyway than an All mode that goes on for a very long time. I think it just helps better break it up. That's my 2 cents, less is more, again ask 10 different people, get 10 different answers.

you said: "All is an option from every page and you have to manipulate something no matter what anyway to keep going through the gallery"

go to gphs71.org
Click on School Memories
Click on Cheerleaders & GGuards

There are 2 albums - one by me, the other by Jan

How on this page can I say - I WANNA SEE THEM ALL

It is NOT INTUITIVE for me to click on Jan's album and hope there is a drop down that says - Oh yeah I wanna see Charlies pix too at the same time. I know that is there but to a new user, they are looking for an all option

some how i lost a point

the screen i took you to also has a negative message: O crap, i gottal look at JAN'S PIX then Charlies Pix then bubba's pix.

I think the initial assumption is that each contributor has a gallery available for viewing, which is exactly what we want. If nothing else the person can clearly see they can come back to the main gallery page as a launching point to access the photos of any other contributor. But once into any gallery they'll also see they can jump to any contributor's photos without having to back up, or hit the All option, just as you quickly discovered. I think if we add a "View All" button on the page then we also would need to add brief instructions. Again I'm concerned people might think they need to click the new "View All" button in order to actually see everything -- which is absolutely not the case.

I guess this is another one where were agree to disagree.